Problems with the Baha'i faith

[Dawnofhope]

Generalizing things in the other religions is one of the problems that Baha'is are susceptible in doing. To become "enlightened" or to become a "sage" in some religions is something that any person can become. It might take many lifetimes to achieve it, but they can do it. A "prophet" in Judaism seems way different to me. These people were chosen by their God to deliver a message. A "manifestation" is even more special and unique... if it is true. Those people are supposedly "perfect" mirrors of God?

And that's a problem for me believing the Baha'i explanation. As we talked about all ready in other threads, all the patriarchs in Judaism are very human, with imperfections and faults. Some of the prophets in Judaism like Samuel, Jeremiah, Elijah and Isaiah, to me, would be closer to fitting the description of "manifestation" than even Abraham or Noah and especially Adam. And then we have David, the Lord's Anointed King. He made so many mistakes, yet he was called the "apple" of God's eye?

Then the problem of religions that make their prophets/founders/manifestations into God/men. Baha'is have to disagree with these kinds of claims and find alternative interpretations of the religion's Scriptures that say or imply that those people are "God in the flesh" or some kind of incarnation of a God. Re-interpreting verses is already a problem, but then Baha'is also say that the Scriptures aren't "authentic" and have had "traditions" added in. Which makes the Scriptures of that religion, not the "Word of God", but the word of men. Which, if that's what Baha'is really said in the first place, I'd be fine with it... That all the previous religions were men's attempts to understand an unknowable Spirit Being, and they were all wrong. That some traditions they came up with had some benefit to people and civilization, but many rules and practices weren't all that good and needed to be replaced and done away with... like animal sacrifices, stoning people for breaking the Sabbath, sacrificing people to the various gods etc.

So did the real God order people to obey those kinds of rules? Did God ordain those kinds of practices? I don't think so. So then, where did those things come from? I'd have to believe it came from the leaders of the people. People made the rules of their society and defined their religion and their gods. I don't see it didn't coming from the "real" God in some "progressive" way that slowly evolved over time as people advanced. For me, right now, the Baha'i explanation is too simplistic and over generalizes religious evolution. I think man had much more to do with it then God.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. The biggest difference in our perspectives is of course faith in the God of Abraham. Within the sacred scriptures of the world religions I see His reflection within all the humanness. The infallible amidst the falllible. One man’s spiritual insight is another’s delusion. The sins of the near ones are the Godly deeds of the sinners.

 

[ajay0]

I've always found some issues with the main idea of the Baha'i faith, for a few different reasons.

The first is that they equate Krishna to many other prophets, as if somehow Krishna in either case is the main god or spokesperson or prophet of Hinduism as a monolithic religion. Hinduism has had many prophets throughout the ages, not a single one can be tied to it's founding, but many known and unknown throughout the ages.

He's not, he's the main figure for Viashnavas, which while the largest Hindu religion isn't the majority.

Hinduism has many sects and distinct philosophical traditions devoted to monism, monotheism, pantheism and so on.


The Arya Samajis, Prajapita Brahmakumaris and the Sikh religion are strictly monotheistic and consider Krishna as a prophet and great sage but not God unlike the other Hindus. This stance is similar to the Bahai religion's as well.

So I don't think it is much of an oddity.

The Prajapita Brahmakumaris is a women oriented spiritual organisation that worships Shiva as the monotheistic supreme God, and considers Rama , Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad, Guru Nanak as prophet like characters of the past.

Brahma Kumaris - Wikipedia

 

[CG Didymus]

Thanks for sharing your perspective. The biggest difference in our perspectives is of course faith in the God of Abraham. Within the sacred scriptures of the world religions I see His reflection within all the humanness. The infallible amidst the falllible. One man’s spiritual insight is another’s delusion. The sins of the near ones are the Godly deeds of the sinners.

From Exodus chapter 3:

14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

15 God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord,[d] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’

“This is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation.

16 “Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—appeared to me​

The Bible sets these people apart and says that he is their God. The God of all their forefathers. It is a very exclusive religion and no other religion is shown to be true and part of a progression. He also says that he has a name... a name he shall be called and a name that is to last throughout the generations.

Not long after this God kills thousands of the Hebrews for disobeying him. He later orders the Hebrews to kill woman and children and, I think, even animals in Jericho. He has one of his prophets kill all the prophets of another religion. Why? Because he says those people worship a false god, so not all religions were from this God. And he didn't like it.

But this God also says for Moses to tell the people that God has appeared to him. But Baha'is say God is invisible and unknowable. So who's right? The Baha'is have to redefine all of this. The simplest way is to say that it was all symbolic... or the real words and events have been lost and this is only the "traditions" of men... and on top of that, it has all been misinterpreted. Which makes it hard to believe when Baha'is talk of "Sacred Scriptures". But besides that, it's good to hear from you again. Thanks for your comments.

 

[Dawnofhope]

From Exodus chapter 3:

14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

15 God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord,[d] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’

“This is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation.

16 “Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—appeared to me​

The Bible sets these people apart and says that he is their God. The God of all their forefathers. It is a very exclusive religion and no other religion is shown to be true and part of a progression. He also says that he has a name... a name he shall be called and a name that is to last throughout the generations.

Not long after this God kills thousands of the Hebrews for disobeying him. He later orders the Hebrews to kill woman and children and, I think, even animals in Jericho. He has one of his prophets kill all the prophets of another religion. Why? Because he says those people worship a false god, so not all religions were from this God. And he didn't like it.

But this God also says for Moses to tell the people that God has appeared to him. But Baha'is say God is invisible and unknowable. So who's right? The Baha'is have to redefine all of this. The simplest way is to say that it was all symbolic... or the real words and events have been lost and this is only the "traditions" of men... and on top of that, it has all been misinterpreted. Which makes it hard to believe when Baha'is talk of "Sacred Scriptures". But besides that, it's good to hear from you again. Thanks for your comments.

One of the most helpful works to make sense of the apparently contradictory and inconsistent statements both within religions and between religions for me has been One Common Faith, a publication released under the guidance of the Universal House of Justice.

One Common Faith | Bahá’í Reference Library

In regards Baha'u'llah's works the second most important of His works is the Kitab-i-Iqan where He addresses the themes of religious unity.

The Kitáb-i-Íqán | Bahá’í Reference Library

I recommend studying both works to better understand a perspective as to why Baha'is are comfortable seeing the essential unity in all the major world religions.

In regards the bible, there has been a proliferation of scholarship that throws light on the limits of our knowledge. For example, there is practically no evidence that any of the events recorded in the Torah actually happened. That's does not mean to say that they did not, but we have no way of knowing. While many evangelical Christians believe that Moses wrote the Torah almost no scholars believe this, opting instead for its composition by multiple authors around the period of the Babylonian exile.

Study of history in general helps understand religion and the very different times now compared to when empires used to come and go and wars frequently erupted.

Finally a study of comparative religion helps us make sense of the development of religion from animism and the types of pagan religions with many gods that characterised most ancient cultures to the development of the world religions.

Although I haven't directly answered some of your specific questions, clearly some areas of study in the humanities and particular Baha'i writings will provide a clearer alternative view to the contradictions you highlight that suggest religion is man made rather than of God.

Hope that helps.

 

[Alise Wilson]

I believe there is no need to know more since I am already saved by Jesus.

Good for you. Although, Jesus taught people constantly and still does through his profets.

 

[Muffled]

The word prophet has different meanings for each of us. One meaning could be one who is appointed by God to deliver a message to the people. The Baha’is most frequently cited example of a prophet in Hinduism is Krishna.

I believe there is no evidence that either originators of the Baha'i faith were appointed by God or that Krishna was either.

 

[Muffled]

You know when we talk about "progressive" revelation, Judaism is a good example. From Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses shows a progression, but it is all within Judaism. So I do don't see it as a replacement or a revealing of a new religion.

I believe one may not progress beyond the end and Jesus is the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega.

 

[Muffled]

That’s true. As a universalist I would argue that there are different terms to describe essentially the same thing.

Interestingly both the Vaishavite Hindus and Christians have a belief in Krishna and Christ as being incarnations of Vishnu/God.

I believe sage and enlightened do not mean the same thing as prophet. A sage is a person who appears to understand things better than most people and an enlightened person is claiming to have discovered truths and neither type of person needs to hear from God or be appointed by God.

I believe this is just badly worded. Christians believe Jesus is the only named incarnation of God. Krishna claims to be God but I believe his claim is false.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe there is no evidence that either originators of the Baha'i faith were appointed by God or that Krishna was either.

Consider the proofs you would use to establish the legitimacy of either Moses or Jesus to be who they said they were.

We don’t know too much about the life of Krishna or to what extent the Bhagavad Gita reflects what He really taught. It is estimated that He lived nearly five thousand years ago. His legacy remains in that His Teachings continue to positively influence millions of Hindus.

To me, Baha’u’llah like Christ lived an outstanding life and brought Teachings that have transformed the lives of many. So the example of their lives and teachings are their greatest proofs. As Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them.

Beyond that it is written that if a prophet speaks and it comes to pass (or not) then this too is a proof of prophethood.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe sage and enlightened do not mean the same thing as prophet. A sage is a person who appears to understand things better than most people and an enlightened person is claiming to have discovered truths and neither type of person needs to hear from God or be appointed by God.

There would be some overlap in that prophets generally has a greater level of spiritual insight and awareness. Daniel and Isaiah are excellent examples.

There are also prophecies in Hinduism:

4 - Hindu Prophecies

Obviously I would not expect a conservative Christian to believe that any person in the history of Hinduism is appointed by God.

There is of course the example of King Cyrus who was neither a Jew, nor Christian who was the 'anointed one of God' as recorded in the book of Isaiah.

Isaiah 44:28, Isaiah 45:1

Cyrus as you may know was most likely Zoroastrian and ordered the rebuilding the second Jewish temple.

I believe this is just badly worded. Christians believe Jesus is the only named incarnation of God. Krishna claims to be God but I believe his claim is false.

Of course Christians don't believe that Krishna was an incarnation of God, but that is what many Hindus belief. My point was that the claim for a man to be the incarnation of God is not unique to Christianity.

Krishna has arguably exerted more influence within the history of Hinduism than any other man.

 

[CG Didymus]

Correct, when a Baha'i takes each biblical verse out of it's original context, re-interprets it from the radical fringe, then they can no longer be reassembled into a consistent biblical narrative. I have heard believers from several other faiths say that exact same thing about what Baha'i's do to their own religious texts.

Sorry I didn't bring this up sooner, but if a person follows the Baha'i beliefs about Christianity, then none of main Christian sects or denominations have ever had the truth or know the truth about God. According to them, there is no Trinity, no Satan, and no hell. And salvation is nothing like what Evangelicals believe.

 

[1robin]

Sorry I didn't bring this up sooner, but if a person follows the Baha'i beliefs about Christianity, then none of main Christian sects or denominations have ever had the truth or know the truth about God. According to them, there is no Trinity, no Satan, and no hell. And salvation is nothing like what Evangelicals believe.

I don't know what your driving at here. It appears your merely saying that if Christians are wrong about the bible and the Baha'i are right Christianity is what Baha'i suggests. I do not know what to say to that except that by every applicable metric it is more probable that the Christians are right about their own book and events than the Baha'i are. One thing is for certain is that both can't be right. By the law of non-contradiction either Christians, the Baha'i, or neither have it right but never both.

 

[CG Didymus]

Thanks for sharing your perspective. The biggest difference in our perspectives is of course faith in the God of Abraham. Within the sacred scriptures of the world religions I see His reflection within all the humanness. The infallible amidst the falllible. One man’s spiritual insight is another’s delusion. The sins of the near ones are the Godly deeds of the sinners.

Another thought on "the God of Abraham". That God told Abraham to stick a knife into his son's chest and burn him up as a sacrifice. Some "sacred" scriptures say that son was Issac. Islam and the Baha'is say that son was Ishmael. So the scriptures of some religions of God are teaching falsehoods. So what can we know about this God? Can we trust a God that commands one of his, to the Baha'is, a manifestation, to kill his son?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Another thought on "the God of Abraham". That God told Abraham to stick a knife into his son's chest and burn him up as a sacrifice. Some "sacred" scriptures say that son was Issac. Islam and the Baha'is say that son was Ishmael. So the scriptures of some religions of God are teaching falsehoods. So what can we know about this God? Can we trust a God that commands one of his, to the Baha'is, a manifestation, to kill his son?

We have no way of verifying whether or not any of what is recorded in the book of Genesis is literally true. You may be best asking that questions to Christians who take it all literally.

In regards Isaac and Ishmael, Genesis appears likely to have been written during or around the Babylonian exile by multiple authors so a transcription or transmission error is highly plausible.

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't know what your driving at here. It appears your merely saying that if Christians are wrong about the bible and the Baha'i are right Christianity is what Baha'i suggests. I do not know what to say to that except that by every applicable metric it is more probable that the Christians are right about their own book and events than the Baha'i are. One thing is for certain is that both can't be right. By the law of non-contradiction either Christians, the Baha'i, or neither have it right but never both.

The main thing is against the Baha'is. They say Jesus brought a new message from God to take people to the next level in a spiritual progression. But what message are they talking about? Every message about Jesus and God that most Christians believe in, the Baha'is say is false. So if the Baha'is are right then Christianity is teaching and believing wrong things about God and Jesus and has never been right, even from the very beginning.

The problem for Baha'is is that God sent a manifestation that never wrote a thing and allowed his followers to write false teachings about him. Which, to me, that would make Christianity a false religion. Yet, they try and have it both ways and say it is true, but written by people that weren't eyewitnesses, so therefore they made some mistakes. Plus, traditions and wrong interpretations got mixed in. But still, when do Baha'is say that Christianity ever had the truth?

If you have any comments that'll be great, especially about early Christian beliefs. But, the big question is to them, the Baha'is, how were those early beliefs already wrong?

 

[1robin]

The main thing is against the Baha'is. They say Jesus brought a new message from God to take people to the next level in a spiritual progression. But what message are they talking about? Every message about Jesus and God that most Christians believe in, the Baha'is say is false. So if the Baha'is are right then Christianity is teaching and believing wrong things about God and Jesus and has never been right, even from the very beginning.

Agreed. Something that you should keep in mind is that where the Bahia and Christians disagree with each other concerning biblical events the bible by far is the most reliable source. The bible's claims are usually from those who were alive at the time in question. If Christianity is wrong then why did God allow his revelation to be misunderstood by billions for more than 1000 years. He should have straightened out the apostles before they distorted his intentions. If Christ allowed every single contemporary disciple ruin his ministry then that does not say much for God does it?

The problem for Baha'is is that God sent a manifestation that never wrote a thing and allowed his followers to write false teachings about him. Which, to me, that would make Christianity a false religion. Yet, they try and have it both ways and say it is true, but written by people that weren't eyewitnesses, so therefore they made some mistakes. Plus, traditions and wrong interpretations got mixed in. But still, when do Baha'is say that Christianity ever had the truth?

I would disagree, the bible says that God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the bible's authors and what they must say. We have 5 authors in the new testament speaking in unison. The NT is a consistent narrative told by those who were alive to see the events they catalogue. You can't do much better than that. I believe what they said is an accurate portrayal of what God revealed. If you disagree you are going to have to be specific.

If you have any comments that'll be great, especially about early Christian beliefs. But, the big question is to them, the Baha'is, how were those early beliefs already wrong?

Regarding which claim. Lets look at the core message of Christianity.

Did you know that NT historians regardless of faith regard the following as historical certain. They believe the following events are as reliable as history can make them.

1. Christ practiced a ministry of exorcism and miracle working.
2. That he claimed an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
3. That he was killed by Roman authorities.
4. That his tomb was found empty after the 3rd day.
5. That his friends and enemies claimed to experience him post mortem.

BTW do you know what year the Baha'i religion was founded. I am curious about this.

 

[danieldemol]

The Bab declared His mission in 1844 and Baha’u’llah in 1863.

 

[CG Didymus]

Agreed. Something that you should keep in mind is that where the Bahia and Christians disagree with each other concerning biblical events the bible by far is the most reliable source. The bible's claims are usually from those who were alive at the time in question. If Christianity is wrong then why did God allow his revelation to be misunderstood by billions for more than 1000 years. He should have straightened out the apostles before they distorted his intentions. If Christ allowed every single contemporary disciple ruin his ministry then that does not say much for God does it?

I would disagree, the bible says that God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the bible's authors and what they must say. We have 5 authors in the new testament speaking in unison. The NT is a consistent narrative told by those who were alive to see the events they catalogue. You can't do much better than that. I believe what they said is an accurate portrayal of what God revealed. If you disagree you are going to have to be specific.

Regarding which claim. Lets look at the core message of Christianity.

Did you know that NT historians regardless of faith regard the following as historical certain. They believe the following events are as reliable as history can make them.

1. Christ practiced a ministry of exorcism and miracle working.
2. That he claimed an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
3. That he was killed by Roman authorities.
4. That his tomb was found empty after the 3rd day.
5. That his friends and enemies claimed to experience him post mortem.

BTW do you know what year the Baha'i religion was founded. I am curious about this.

Baha'is don't believe Jesus physically rose from the dead. Therefore, he couldn't have raised others from the dead. And, no one really saw him alive after he was crucified. So for the Baha'is they have to have an alternative explanation. The main one is that things like the resurrection were meant to be taken symbolically and were never meant to be taken as a literal event.

For me, they can't adequately explain all the verses that talk about post resurrection events. There is no symbolic way to explain them. Yet, they try, because they need the NT to be true, if only symbolically.

So Jesus did not rise from the dead. Jesus didn't raise anyone from the dead. He is not God, and any verse that implies that, is metaphorical. The devil and hell and Creation are also metaphorical. So by doing this they can say they believe in the Blble, in their symbolic way, while at the same time, they can deny the beliefs of Christians by saying they have misinterpreted the Bible by taking it too literal.

 

[1robin]

Baha'is don't believe Jesus physically rose from the dead.

But all the contemporary texts about these events are contained in the bible. Baha'ism came hundreds or thousands of years later. Also only the bible's account of Christ make the bible a consistent narrative.

Therefore, he couldn't have raised others from the dead. And, no one really saw him alive after he was crucified. So for the Baha'is they have to have an alternative explanation. The main one is that things like the resurrection were meant to be taken symbolically and were never meant to be taken as a literal event.

Well we are not really discussing the places where we have disagreements. Instead we are discussing which said is more likely to be getting it right.

For me, they can't adequately explain all the verses that talk about post resurrection events. There is no symbolic way to explain them. Yet, they try, because they need the NT to be true, if only symbolically.

As I have said many times I think the Baha'i faith is based on false premise' but every Baha'i I have debated has been civil and polite. Appreciate it, it is all too rare.

So Jesus did not rise from the dead.

But which position is more probable? My faith is based on the claims made by people who were actually there.

Jesus didn't raise anyone from the dead. He is not God, and any verse that implies that, is metaphorical. The devil and hell and Creation are also metaphorical. So by doing this they can say they believe in the Blble, in their symbolic way, while at the same time, they can deny the beliefs of Christians by saying they have misinterpreted the Bible by taking it too literal.

Again, every single person that was actually there claimed Christ actually did what you deny.

Our debate is not about where we disagree, it is about which one of us got it right. My sources are vastly more reliable than yours because they were actually their, multiple attestation, and because their testimony makes the entire bible consistant.

 

[Muffled]

Consider the proofs you would use to establish the legitimacy of either Moses or Jesus to be who they said they were.

We don’t know too much about the life of Krishna or to what extent the Bhagavad Gita reflects what He really taught. It is estimated that He lived nearly five thousand years ago. His legacy remains in that His Teachings continue to positively influence millions of Hindus.

To me, Baha’u’llah like Christ lived an outstanding life and brought Teachings that have transformed the lives of many. So the example of their lives and teachings are their greatest proofs. As Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them.

Beyond that it is written that if a prophet speaks and it comes to pass (or not) then this too is a proof of prophethood.

Moses spoke to a rock and water gushed out. Jesus healed a man blind from birth.