Is Baha'u'llah true or false Prophet?

[CG Didymus]

The key is, one is to make no distinction between any of the Messengers CG.

If I praise Baha'u'llah, I praise them One and All. They are One in God.

He is Baha'u'llah, He is the Bab, He is Muhammad, He is Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster and Buddha.

He is the first Messenger, he is the Last Messenger, from the beginning that has no beginning, until the end that has no end.

Yes, according to Baha'i beliefs. But how many other religions share that view? It seems like only liberal versions of the other religions are accepting of the other religions. But to do that, they're going against the conservative sides of their religion. Those more conservative sides are the ones that embraces their Scriptures so much that some of them take them extremely literal.

Baha'is don't take any of the other Scriptures literally. In fact, Baha'is make a point that they can't and shouldn't be taken literally. So, I wouldn't call that "embracing". What Baha'is do seem to embrace is that the Scriptures of the other religions are not historically accurate and not totally authentic and have been written by the followers, not the supposed messenger, and that the followers that came after the Scriptures were written misinterpreted what was written.

So, what do we really know about the life and teachings of any of them, except your prophets and, for Baha'is, Muhammad? Here's some Baha'i quotes about the Bible and NT...

We cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá’ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá’u’lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic.​

​

The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá’u’lláh.​

​

Except for what has been explained by Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.​

​

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings...​

​

When ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.​

 

[CG Didymus]

There is very little in our Writings about Hinduism and Buddhism, so what we may say about those is just our own opinion not backed up by our Writings. The scriptures of the past are not obsolete, and those of others religions are entitled to their opinion about those.

Thanks for your replies. Back in the 70's, I read the Ramayana. Now Rama, along with several others, including Krishna and Buddha, are considered Avatars by some Hindus. But I never thought the story was literal. Here's a summary.

Born during an age when the demon Ravana terrorized the world, Rama is the virtuous, wise, and powerful prince of Ayohya. As a young man, he is able to accomplish what no other man has ever done: he lifts and strings the bow of Siva, and by so doing he earns the right to marry the beautiful Sita.​

​

Just when he is about to ascend the throne of Ayodhya, his father Dasaratha is forced to exile him for fourteen years to the forest due to a vow made long ago. Unruffled, Rama accepts his exile; his wife Sita and his loyal brother Lakshmana accompany him. In the forest, the princely brothers kill many demons and visit many wise men and women.​

​

The evil demon Ravana hears of Sita's beauty, and kidnaps her. He has fallen in love with her and tries to seduce her, but she rebuffs his advances for nearly ten months.​

​

Desperate to win her back, Rama and Lakshmana form an alliance with the monkey king Sugriva, and invade Lanka with an army of monkeys. After many violent battles, Rama defeats Ravana and wins back Sita. He is concerned that she has been unfaithful during her long captivity, and so Sita undergoes a trial by fire to prove her chastity. Rama takes her back, and they return to rule Ayodhya for many wonderful years.​

​

I'm okay with these stories being myth. But I don't know if Baha'is are okay with it? Maybe with the Ramayana. But what about the Bhagavad Gita? Or any of the other Scriptures of Hinduism? Baha'is accept Buddha and Krishna as manifestations, but which Scriptures of Buddhism and Hinduism do Baha'is accept as being at least partially authentic and true?

 

[Pete in Panama]

In a nutshell I believe that the roles that people are limited to should be based on criteria that are demonstrably relevant.

I hope that makes sense to you as a general rule and if not please feel welcome to ask more specific questions or even suggest a suitable example if you think it would be helpful to explore.

What ur saying makes sense by itself, tho I'm at a loss to see how it makes you "spiritual but not religious". That said, your post here leaves a lot of flexibility w/ the ideas of just what is "demonstrably relevant". Let's agree that nailing the idea to case by case situations can become controversial.

Going further "case by case", do you agree w/ what the Baha'is say about the equality of men and women (list here)? How do you feel about the U.S. gov't policy of being ready to draft men for national emergencies and not women?

 

[Pete in Panama]

As if you didn't evaluate the other religions. What didn't you like about Catholics? What didn't you like about Evangelistic/Born-Again Christianity? Why aren't you a Mormon? What don't you like about any sect of Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam and the rest? What don't you like about the Baha'i Faith? Then... What do you like about them? Why do you like the Baha'i Faith the best? And, since you do like the Baha'i Faith the best, then you must not have liked something about the others.

I don't like the Baha'i Faith concept of "progressive" revelation. I don't think it accurately describes how religions came to be and how religious thought evolved. Although I think it would be great to live in a world without weapons where people live in peace, still people needed weapons just to protect themselves from predators and to kill other animals for food. Then they also needed weapons to protect themselves from other humans.

How are the teachings of the Baha'i Faith going to change that? God's supposed laws against murder or anything else have prevented the behavior. How are the laws of the Baha'i Faith going to stop it? If not, then we won't have a peaceful world. Execute or imprison murderers... Burn arsons... Tatoo thieves and put them out of the city or town, fine adulterers and homosexuals... but will the behaviors ever stop?

In any large city where there are hundreds of Baha'is, can nine people really run and control and pass judgements fairly on all the Baha'is in their city? What if the whole city were Baha'is? How would you even hold feast? That's why I keep asking if there are places in the world that have a large number of Baha'is that are applying as many of the teachings as possible, and that it is actually working.

I knew some of the people from the Dialogue Magazine, and once the printed "A Modest Proposal", they got in trouble with the Baha'i administration and got shut down. There were things that some Baha'is didn't like about how the Baha'i Faith was doing things. They were stopped. Why? Because they didn't go through proper channels? But openly criticized the Baha'i Faith? Have people used proper channels and gotten anywhere?

Anyway, what I would like is if people in all religions would practice what they preach... love, humility, and all those goody-goody things. Of course, someone like me, would still not necessarily believe and complain about the weird teachings of most all religions, but I couldn't say anything bad about the way the religious people behave. But, since most don't practice what they preach, I complain about that too.

You people say you believe, then live it. Too many Christians, Baha'is and some others come off as spiritual know-it-alls... as if they have seen the light and the rest of us are blind. Be humble, be respectful, be joyous in your love for all people and you'll have my respect. But I'll still point out things in your religion I don't believe in and don't like.

OK, so what we got is that you're willing to talk about what you don't like & not willing to say what you want. That's nice but this would mean that there's not much area where you and I can interact.

Cheers.

 

[Truthseeker]

Thanks for your replies. Back in the 70's, I read the Ramayana. Now Rama, along with several others, including Krishna and Buddha, are considered Avatars by some Hindus. But I never thought the story was literal. Here's a summary.

Born during an age when the demon Ravana terrorized the world, Rama is the virtuous, wise, and powerful prince of Ayohya. As a young man, he is able to accomplish what no other man has ever done: he lifts and strings the bow of Siva, and by so doing he earns the right to marry the beautiful Sita.​

​

Just when he is about to ascend the throne of Ayodhya, his father Dasaratha is forced to exile him for fourteen years to the forest due to a vow made long ago. Unruffled, Rama accepts his exile; his wife Sita and his loyal brother Lakshmana accompany him. In the forest, the princely brothers kill many demons and visit many wise men and women.​

​

The evil demon Ravana hears of Sita's beauty, and kidnaps her. He has fallen in love with her and tries to seduce her, but she rebuffs his advances for nearly ten months.​

​

Desperate to win her back, Rama and Lakshmana form an alliance with the monkey king Sugriva, and invade Lanka with an army of monkeys. After many violent battles, Rama defeats Ravana and wins back Sita. He is concerned that she has been unfaithful during her long captivity, and so Sita undergoes a trial by fire to prove her chastity. Rama takes her back, and they return to rule Ayodhya for many wonderful years.​

​

I'm okay with these stories being myth. But I don't know if Baha'is are okay with it? Maybe with the Ramayana. But what about the Bhagavad Gita? Or any of the other Scriptures of Hinduism? Baha'is accept Buddha and Krishna as manifestations, but which Scriptures of Buddhism and Hinduism do Baha'is accept as being at least partially authentic and true?

I never had heard what the Ramayana was about. I know the general outlines of the Mahabharata.

The Baha'is each have their own opinion of how authentic the Bhagavad-Gita is. My own personal opinion is that this was a part of the Mahabharata mythical story, and thus I take with a big grain of salt the circumstances surrounding this discourse with Arjuna. Regardless of their authenticity I see a lot of enlightened truth in that discourse. Some things in it don't jive with Baha'i in my opinion (like reincarnation), but that is not important to me. I take the good from it. I have no idea how much of this is derived from Krishna, who may have lived at least a thousand years before this was written. As to the rest of Hindu literature, I also take whatever good there is in them, though they have nothing to do with any Messenger of God. I accept that Hinduism is not like other major religions in that it has no one founder.

The text I like the most from the Buddha is the Dhammapada. Some texts I find hard to comprehend as a Westerner. I keep in mind that what the Buddha said was memorized, and not written down for over 400 years. Who knows what is authentic? The basic outline of teachings I find very enlightened.

 

[Muwwahid]

It's a false prophet, Allah azawajal said Rasulullah (SAW) is last Rasul/Prophet/nabi

 

[IndigoChild5559]

People may judge for themselves. whether or not Baha'u'llah is a true or false Prophet.

On 9 May 1892, Bahá'u'lláh contracted a slight fever which grew steadily over the following days, abated, and then finally resulted in his death on 29 May 1892 (Dhu'l Qa'dah 2, 1309 AH). He was buried in the shrine located next to the Mansion of Bahjí.)
Bahá'u'lláh - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Bahá'u'lláh

Baha'u'llah died at Acre in Israel, and was buried in the shrine located next to the Mansion of Bahji, which is located in Acre in Israel, which is about 200 miles away from Jerusalem.
Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Shrine_of_Bahá'u'lláh
The Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh, located in Bahjí near Acre, Israel, is the most holy ... It contains the remains of Bahá'u'lláh and is near the spot where he died in the Mansion of Bahjí.

This being about 200 miles away from Jerusalem.


Notice what Christ Jesus had to say about Jerusalem in the book of Luke 13:33--" Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem"
This meaning that no prophet shall die outside of Jerusalem.

Now as for Baha'u'llah dieing 200 miles away from Jerusalem, Christ Jesus thereby proving Baha'u'llah is a false prophet.

The Prophets of God, either died a natural death or was stone to death by people in Jerusalem.

But here we find Baha'u'llah, died On 9 May 1892, Bahá'u'lláh contracted a slight fever which grew steadily over the following days, abated, and then finally resulted in his death on 29 May 1892.

So it is that Baha'u'llah didn't die a natural death, as in dieing of old age, But by contracted a slight fever which grew steadily over the following days, which caused his death on May 29,1892.

But yet Christ Jesus has said in Luke 13:34--"Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

34-- "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not"

So we find the Prophets of Gods died at Jerusalem, at the hands of the people in Jerusalem or by a natural death of old age.

Where as Baha'u'llah died by a fever that took his life 200 miles outside of Jerusalem.

So Baha'u'llah didn't die by a natural death of old age or by the hands of people in Jerusalem, But by a fever. As there were no prophets of Gods that ever died by any diseases.

But by a natural death of old age or at the hands of people in Jerusalem.

Which again proves Baha'u'llah as a false prophet.

For Christ Jesus did say in Luke 13:33--"Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem"

That being outside of Jerusalem, which puts Baha'u'llah dieing 200 miles away from Jerusalem as a false prophet.

No, I do not believe the Baha'u'lla was a prophet. But then, neither was Muhammad or Jesus, so he's in good company.

 

[danieldemol]

What ur saying makes sense by itself, tho I'm at a loss to see how it makes you "spiritual but not religious". That said, your post here leaves a lot of flexibility w/ the ideas of just what is "demonstrably relevant". Let's agree that nailing the idea to case by case situations can become controversial.

Going further "case by case", do you agree w/ what the Baha'is say about the equality of men and women (list here)?

I agree with men and women being equal and I agree with it being beneficial to educate women wherever there is limits to a dichotomy of choice for educating the male or female members of society.

I do not agree with providing men a greater share of inheritance than women and we have already spoken about women's representation on the house of Justice.

How do you feel about the U.S. gov't policy of being ready to draft men for national emergencies and not women?

I don't personally believe in the draft because it simply puts involuntary fighters on the field who dont wish to be there so I think that they will just dessert at the first chance they get and it will be a waste of a uniform and a weapon. Had a mate who was drafted into the Iraqi army and he said the way they stopped people deserting was to open fire from behind to force the front line to move forward.

Having said that *if* it is decided that the draft is needed in my view it should be decided by a panel comprised of both men *and* women who could then consult to decide if women should be exempted as a general rule or if only mothers bearing children up to a certain child age should be exempted.

 

[CG Didymus]

I never had heard what the Ramayana was about. I know the general outlines of the Mahabharata.

The Baha'is each have their own opinion of how authentic the Bhagavad-Gita is. My own personal opinion is that this was a part of the Mahabharata mythical story, and thus I take with a big grain of salt the circumstances surrounding this discourse with Arjuna. Regardless of their authenticity I see a lot of enlightened truth in that discourse. Some things in it don't jive with Baha'i in my opinion (like reincarnation), but that is not important to me. I take the good from it. I have no idea how much of this is derived from Krishna, who may have lived at least a thousand years before this was written. As to the rest of Hindu literature, I also take whatever good there is in them, though they have nothing to do with any Messenger of God. I accept that Hinduism is not like other major religions in that it has no one founder.

The text I like the most from the Buddha is the Dhammapada. Some texts I find hard to comprehend as a Westerner. I keep in mind that what the Buddha said was memorized, and not written down for over 400 years. Who knows what is authentic? The basic outline of teachings I find very enlightened.

Well, the question is... Did these Scriptures come from God or the wisdom and experience of a spiritual person? But the wisdom being mixed in some fictional, mythical story? So, something like reincarnation and the incarnation of a God into a human were part of the story, and maybe meant to be believed, but the story was just fiction. But how would we know? Maybe the incarnation was just myth too and only the teaching about reincarnation was meant to be believed as true? But did any of it really come from some manifestation that heard it from God?

But even the Christian gospel stories... Were they meant to be believed as being literally true? I think they probably were, but for lots of people they are nearly impossible to be believed as being true. And for some, they do believe that they came from God or were at least inspired by God. But then they also could be nothing more than embellished stories about what the followers of Jesus wanted people to believe about him. If they came from God and are literally true, then that's a lot different than being stories embellished with fictional things that were written by the followers of Jesus.

 

[CG Didymus]

OK, so what we got is that you're willing to talk about what you don't like & not willing to say what you want. That's nice but this would mean that there's not much area where you and I can interact.

Cheers.

Yes, there is. How about why neither of us believe that Fundamentalist Christians have a true understanding of the Bible. And just for you, to make it positive, why don't you tell me why the Baha'i interpretation of the Bible is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

why don't you tell me why the Baha'i interpretation of the Bible is true.

It is only true if the Baha'i Faith is true. Everything hinges on that.

 

[CG Didymus]

I agree with men and women being equal and I agree with it being beneficial to educate women wherever there is limits to a dichotomy of choice for educating the male or female members of society.

It seems as if Baha'is think that we don't like or agree with anything the Baha'i Faith teaches. That's not the problem. I don't believe everything the Baha'i Faith teaches, but some of it is alright. However, since they say it came from God, all of it has to be true.

If there is a God, and if Baha'u'llah is truly the manifestation for this day of that God, then, of course, all people the world over should drop their old beliefs and accept the Baha'i Faith and follow its teachings. But... is the Baha'i Faith absolutely, without a doubt true in all things?

Their belief of who and what God is? Can't prove it. Must be taken on "faith". Baha'u'llah is the latest messenger from God? Can't prove that either. So, take that on "faith" too. The prophecies from all the other religions that told us exactly what to expect and what was going to happen? Nope, they don't tell us "exactly" anything. They get interpreted hundreds of different ways. What do we know for sure? Nothing. So, we ask questions.

 

[Trailblazer]

It seems as if Baha'is think that we don't like or agree with anything the Baha'i Faith teaches. That's not the problem. I don't believe everything the Baha'i Faith teaches, but some of it is alright. However, since they say it came from God, all of it has to be true.

I don't believe everything the Baha'i Faith teaches, but some of it is alright. For example, I do not believe that God is All-Loving.
However, since I believe that what Baha'u'llah wrote came from God, all of it has to be true, including that God is All-Loving.
That puts me in a very difficult position, especially with other Baha'is, but I deal with it because I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

 

[Pete in Panama]

OK, so what we got is that you're willing to talk about what you don't like & not willing to say what you want. That's nice but this would mean that there's not much area where you and I can interact.

Cheers.

Yes, there is. How about why neither of us believe that Fundamentalist Christians have a true understanding of the Bible. And just for you, to make it positive, why don't you tell me why the Baha'i interpretation of the Bible is true.

Please understand that I don't fight w/ folks about religion. Here's a description of fundamentalism (from here):

The five widely accepted fundamentals were Biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, Jesus's resurrection, and Jesus's second coming. Christian fundamentalism became an interdenominational movement, encouraging Christians to stand firm in orthodox Christian beliefs. ​

If I get to define the words used then I can say I agree w/ virtually all of the above, tho I imagine that not everyone will have the same definitions. OTOH, I can redefine what they're saying and "prove" it all wrong, but that would make me a dickweed. When it comes to religion, I look for commonality, build from there, and resolve contradictions. imho just complainging about other folks is dumb.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I agree with men and women being equal...

--and you also agree that women and men are different. While they're the same before God we have to understand that they average upper body strength of a woman is equal to that of a 60 year old man. Not saying that women are inferior, there's lots of ways they're superior to men --but on average they're different. Is that your understanding?

... *if* it is decided that the draft is needed in my view it should be decided by a panel comprised of both men *and* women who could then consult to decide if women should be exempted as a general rule or if only mothers bearing children up to a certain child age should be exempted.

The U.S. gov't has a Selective Service Commission ready to draft only men whenever congress says so. You seem to be saying that the U.S. gov't is wrong. Is that what ur saying?

 

[danieldemol]

--and you also agree that women and men are different.

Ok

we have to understand that they average upper body strength of a woman is equal to that of a 60 year old man.

Citation to a reliable source required.

I did some googling and found this study which says women's upper body strength is approx 60% of a man's;

A Comparison between Male and Female Athletes in Relative Strength and Power Performances - PMC

The aim of this study was to compare male vs. female athletes in strength and power performance relative to body mass (BM) and lean body mass (LBM) and to investigate the relationships between muscle architecture and strength in both genders. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Not saying that women are inferior, there's lots of ways they're superior to men --but on average they're different. Is that your understanding?

Yes they are different, but really how much hand to hand combat goes on in a modern army? Most of it is done from overhead at 40,000 feet these days according to my understanding.

As far as ground troops go if two populations of equal size go to war and one population brings the men *and* the women to combat whilst the other side brings only the men guess which side will quickly find themselves outnumbered and overpowered?

And which side is more likely to rape unarmed women who find themselves caught on the battlefield? The side with their women watching on or only the side with their men watching?

And which woman is more likely to be raped, a woman armed with a gun or a defenceless unarmed woman?

And how much stronger is the average Maori woman than the average white man for example?

The U.S. gov't has a Selective Service Commission ready to draft only men whenever congress says so. You seem to be saying that the U.S. gov't is wrong. Is that what ur saying?

The US is one of the most patriarchal societies in the developed world. Nonetheless what they do in their own country is largely their business.

Having said that I doubt Australian critical thinkers who asked the questions I have asked in this post would agree with their conclusions, but I haven't done a scientific survey so perhaps it's just me who can see how senseless it is in my perspective.

 

[CG Didymus]

Please understand that I don't fight w/ folks about religion. Here's a description of fundamentalism (from here):

The five widely accepted fundamentals were Biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, Jesus's resurrection, and Jesus's second coming. Christian fundamentalism became an interdenominational movement, encouraging Christians to stand firm in orthodox Christian beliefs. ​

If I get to define the words used then I can say I agree w/ virtually all of the above, tho I imagine that not everyone will have the same definitions. OTOH, I can redefine what they're saying and "prove" it all wrong, but that would make me a dickweed. When it comes to religion, I look for commonality, build from there, and resolve contradictions. imho just complainging about other folks is dumb.

To be a Baha'i kind of means you don't believe certain things that are major beliefs in the other religions. What are the reasons Baha'is don't? Then, coming from believing in another religion, that person has reasons why they don't believe in the Baha'i Faith. Can either one disregard those reasons? It's not complaining. It's have religious belief that are different and contradictory. And each believes their religion is the one the is correct.

Can a Baha'i really stop caring about those differences and accept the beliefs and practices of the other religions? I don't think "true believers" in any religion can do that. It goes against what they believe is true. Can a Fundy Christian put aside their beliefs about Jesus, that he rose from the dead and is the only was a person can have their sins forgiven, and a big one, that he is God incarnate? Probably not.

But can a Baha'i put aside their belief that Baha'u'llah is the true manifestation for today? That Jesus is just one of many manifestations and that his teachings have long been replaced by the teachings of Islam and the Baha'i Faith. Unless a person is super liberal about doctrinal beliefs, then I don't think so.

So, what's more important to Baha'is, being strong on the belief that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God, and his teachings are the only way to bring peace and unity to the world. Or putting those beliefs on the back burner for the sake of being able to find those things that you, as a person, has in common with Fundy Christians, or Muslims or Hindus or anyone else, including Atheists?

Maybe you can. Maybe you try to. But we're here on a debate forum to question these different beliefs. And then there is the problem of the "hidden" agenda... Once a Baha'i or Christian or whomever finds the commonality with the other person, then what? Do they then, slowly, start "guiding" them to the "truth", the Baha'i truth?

I've seen it done by Baha'is and Christians. Make friends with someone, get them to know you and trust you, then invite them to a fireside or Bible study. Or give them a pamphlet to read. But does the Baha'i or Christian ever intend to seriously consider the beliefs of the other person? No, the Baha'i and Christian know they have the truth and are only trying to guide a lost soul to that truth.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Ok

Citation to a reliable source required.

I did some googling and found this study which says women's upper body strength is approx 60% of a man's;

A Comparison between Male and Female Athletes in Relative Strength and Power Performances - PMC

The aim of this study was to compare male vs. female athletes in strength and power performance relative to body mass (BM) and lean body mass (LBM) and to investigate the relationships between muscle architecture and strength in both genders. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Yes they are different, but really how much hand to hand combat goes on in a modern army? Most of it is done from overhead at 40,000 feet these days according to my understanding.

As far as ground troops go if two populations of equal size go to war and one population brings the men *and* the women to combat whilst the other side brings only the men guess which side will quickly find themselves outnumbered and overpowered?

And which side is more likely to rape unarmed women who find themselves caught on the battlefield? The side with their women watching on or only the side with their men watching?

And which woman is more likely to be raped, a woman armed with a gun or a defenceless unarmed woman?

And how much stronger is the average Maori woman than the average white man for example?

The US is one of the most patriarchal societies in the developed world. Nonetheless what they do in their own country is largely their business.

Having said that I doubt Australian critical thinkers who asked the questions I have asked in this post would agree with their conclusions, but I haven't done a scientific survey so perhaps it's just me who can see how senseless it is in my perspective.

That is all very interesting.

My understand is that you have decided that Baha'u'llah is wrong based on understandings not all of which are based on "a scientific study". Please confirm this. IOW, what I'm hearing is that you're unwilling to reexamine your views and I need to know if I'm hearing your right. If that's the case then perhaps later I may think of something I've overlooked or you'll find a scientific set of observations that bear on your conclusions --then we can chat again and I look forward to it.

 

[Pete in Panama]

To be a Baha'i kind of means you don't believe certain things that are major beliefs in the other religions...

While we all can believe whatever we want, I can tell you that Baha'is accept all the religions of the past and see them in agreement. Perhaps what's critical here is the difference between the religion of the prophet founder and the various splinter groups that may emerge from the founder. Given that the splinters don't agree w/ each other, we can not agree w/ all. In contrast, we can agree w/ the founders.

...So, what's more important to Baha'is, being strong on the belief that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God, and his teachings are the only way to bring peace and unity to the world. Or putting those beliefs on the back burner for the sake of being able to find those things that you, as a person, has in common with Fundy Christians, or Muslims or Hindus or anyone else, including Atheists?

That's just it, I'm seeing that accepting "Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God" actually requires finding "those things that you, as a person, has in common with Fundy Christians, or Muslims or Hindus or anyone else, including Atheists". In my small community we got several kid's classes mostly run by people who are not enrolled Baha'is, along w/ regular meetings mostly attended by others who likewise are not enrolled Baha'is.

What I'm seeing is that the human race is bringing "peace and unity to the world" because we are now in just such an age. If we see God = Reality, then we got reality (God) is that the world is coming together.

...we're here on a debate forum to question these different beliefs. And then there is the problem of the "hidden" agenda... Once a Baha'i or Christian or whomever finds the commonality with the other person, then what? Do they then, slowly, start "guiding" them to the "truth", the Baha'i truth?

I've seen it done by Baha'is and Christians. Make friends with someone, get them to know you and trust you, then invite them to a fireside or Bible study. Or give them a pamphlet to read. But does the Baha'i or Christian ever intend to seriously consider the beliefs of the other person? No, the Baha'i and Christian know they have the truth and are only trying to guide a lost soul to that truth.

What ur saying is valid and I have seen similar processes. At the same time our shared observations here may also be explained by the fact that people are complex, and if we start by agreeing that we're sharing and comparing, then we end up seeing the same phenomena. This forum can be and is more than just a "debate forum". It's also for sharing, discussing, and comparing. I'm seeing the emergence of shared understandings.

 

[danieldemol]

That is all very interesting.

My understand is that you have decided that Baha'u'llah is wrong based on understandings not all of which are based on "a scientific study".

Sure, part of it is based on the scientific study i quoted and part of it is simply based in reason, however im always suspicious of those who claim to accept science yet in actuality reject reason which is the underpinning foundation upon which science rests.

I note in your reply you did not answer any of the reasonable questions posed nor did you offer refutation of the reason based statements made in my view.

IOW, what I'm hearing is that you're unwilling to reexamine your views and I need to know if I'm hearing your right.

I think you are projecting here. It is you who are unwilling to give up your belief in Baha'u'llah and thus unwilling to change your mind as I see it. By comparison I'm willing to change if you can demonstrate either the science and/or the logic that refutes me in my view.

If that's the case then perhaps later I may think of something I've overlooked or you'll find a scientific set of observations that bear on your conclusions --then we can chat again and I look forward to it.

No problem, find new evidence to bring to the table and we can take up where we left off.