Problems with the Baha'i faith

[CG Didymus]

I agree with your reservations about Baha'i. I am just going to add to them.

They hold to some strange belief that every religion's primary texts must somehow all be part of some greater whole. The problem is that most of history's religions contradict each other and make exclusive claims. Why not, truth is exclusive, why shouldn't a faith be? The law of non contradiction would indicate that either 1 or none of history's religions are true. Regardless, the Baha'i faith allows it's presuppositions to render laws that lack a single exception, moot. But how do you get 100 pieces from different puzzles to all fit together? You mangle each unique religion's scriptures until they are unrecognizable then cram the whole mess back together like a theological Frankenstein.

I wouldn't use the word "mangle" so much as "redefining". Things that contradict are either "symbolic"... Like Creation, the Flood and the Resurrection of Jesus, which are topics in other threads by Adrian... or they were man-made "traditions" added to the original teachings. Which in many cases makes sense and could be true. However, for you as a Christian, it takes your religion and mangles it. Oh okay, I guess mangle does fit, never mind.

 

[CG Didymus]

...Because it totally dismissed the validity of other faiths and cultures...

Not at all. We recognise the wisdom and Divinity in all true religions and acknowledge that some beliefs are no longer appropriate for the modern age.

The "validity" and "Divinity" in all "True" religions? Yes, which ones are true? Each religions tells which other ones are true. For most it is theirs and theirs alone. The others are all false. But by saying that you "recognize the wisdom and Divinity in all true religions", do Baha'i have a list of which religions aren't true?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It's easy to say on the surface that you believe all the religions are one, however when Baha'is go into what they believe about the other religions, they go through several things they really don't believe are true in those other religions. And then, Baha'is try and explain why those things aren't true. This is the problem.

Literal belief in the Bible? Not true. Several big issues for "Bible believing" Christians would be no literal Satan, no physical resurrection of Jesus or anybody. Even healings are made symbolic by saying the person was "spiritually" blind, and Jesus opened their spiritual eye, so they could see the light.

A big issue with the Baha'i interpretation of Hinduism is saying that there is no reincarnation. We've been going 'round and 'round with this. So all we can say is that all religions are one when put through the strainer of what Baha'u'llah says is true about the different religions.

But it's not only him, the "manifestation". It's also his "infallible" son Abdul Baha. Whatever he has said about a religion has become the truth about that religion, regardless of what the followers of that religion say they believe.

Ok, however, it should be stated here that although the Bahai doctrines may not be according to the desire of some people, specially the mainstream ones, however, its doctrines are irrefutable. Meaning no body can actually prove it to be wrong. And for a fact, for all the doctrines of Bahai faith, there are evidence in Previous Scriptures, as well as at least some early believers who had held the same beliefs as Bahai Faith teaches. For instance, Bahai Faith teaches that when Scriptures talk about Resurrection, it only means in spiritual sense, and for a fact there are evidence for this, in many other Religious Traditions, or by return of a Prophet, it is meant appearance of another Prophet with Same spiritual Qualities rather than, physically the same Person. For this there are many evidence in the Scriptures of other Religions.

 

[CG Didymus]

Ok, however, it should be stated here that although the Bahai doctrines may not be according to the desire of some people, specially the mainstream ones, however, its doctrines are irrefutable. Meaning no body can actually prove it to be wrong. And for a fact, for all the doctrines of Bahai faith, there are evidence in Previous Scriptures, as well as at least some early believers who hold the same beliefs as Bahai Faith teaches.

So the Baha'i doctrines are "irrefutable"? How about doctrines like reincarnation and Jesus rising from the dead, or even things like people in Genesis living 100's of years? How do you refute them?

 

[Windwalker]

Yes people do tend to follow what they are surrounded by but that was not the argument I made nor does it say anything about whether any religion is true or not.

They do more than just follow culture. They are created by it. It constitutes the boundaries of their reality. It provides the language, the modes of thought, the values, and all other notions of truth they use to see the world through. It provides their eyes. It's vastly more than a matter of following. It conditions our perspectives on everything.

Your confusing epistemology (how we come to know of a thing) with ontology (what the nature of the things actually is).

No I'm not. I'm saying the nature of what things "actually" are is conditioned by our programming. You can't know how things "really are" except through those filters which subsequently colorize it as a reflection of that culture. Unless you can claim to have transcended those, but I sincerely doubt you legitimately can, since you are using them to make your case for what you think that truth is.

So the nature of a religion is unrelated to why or how we come to believe in it.

It absolutely is related. Humans create God in their own image. Why do you think there are so many images of God out there, including yours? You assume yours is not a projection, and only theirs are? You might wish to think about that very special position that just happens to be the one you happened upon. It's really hard to defend that.

The nature of a God based religion should hold complete sovereignty over it's followers.

First of all, all religions are "God based" in one fashion or another. Secondly however, that a religion should hold "complete sovereignty" over it's followers sounds like a recipe for a dangerous cult, not a "true religion". A true religion allows the exploration of truth and meaning. It's not a dictatorship. That is the opposite of a religion of the heart. Is your religion a dictatorship?

IOW if a person has faith in a religion, he should submit himself to it rather than the other way around, regardless of how he came to believe in it.

Oh dear, that's a problem. Again, that sounds like a cult. I have faith in God, not a religion. Religions are created by humans. Faith is created by God.

Despite the fact that most people are heavily influenced by their faith, I find Christians to be the most scrutinizing of people.

Not in my experience. I find the sort you're talking about the most in denial of truth, not facing change, but making every excuse in the world to not face it, and calling that "faith". I find it tragic on the deepest levels. Not praiseworthy at all.

Unlike Islam there is no potential death penalty for question our faith, and entire libraries are filled with professional argumentation concerning the faith.

If you ignore the Grand Inquisition, you might have an argument. Also, if you ignore "disfellowshipping", and if you ignore shunning, disowning, excommunication, and all the other things that goes along with Christians who don't toe the line.

I am short on time or I would list the many ways that Christianity is more resistant to cultural collusion compared to most faiths, sufficient to say for now that the bible is the most scrutinized book ever written.

Oh goodness, Christianity is totally morphed and shaped by culture throughout the ages!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So the Baha'i doctrines are "irrefutable"?

It claims that it is. Many tried to refute them, but as far as I know, they could not disprove infallibility of Bahaullah, and Abdulbaha.

How about doctrines like reincarnation and Jesus rising from the dead, or even things like people in Genesis living 100's of years? How do you refute them?

How do I refute them?
There are two ways, in general.
By showing that in certain cases, literal interpretation of a verse, would contradict with other clear verses and that such literal interpretations would also contradict with the established science and logic.
It does not mean, that by refuting these literal ideas, all people choose to abandon their beliefs in them. No! Consider, even today, there are people who still believe earth is very young, though, according to science such beliefs are false. That just tells us, people choose to believe what they like, rather than based on its truth.

 

[Vinayaka]

It claims that it is. Many tried to refute them, but as far as I know, they could not disprove infallibility of Bahaullah, and Abdulbaha.

So it's basically, "I'm infallible because I say that I'm infallible."

 

[Windwalker]

As a matter of fact, Bahaullah agrees with you. This why, He wrote we must have Universal House of Justice:

"Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the House of Justice that the members thereof may act according to the needs and requirements of the time. "– Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, pp. 128-129.

"Those matters of major importance which constitute the foundation of the Law of God are explicitly recorded in the Text, but subsidiary laws are left to the House of Justice. The wisdom of this is that the times never remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute of this world, and of time and place. "– Abdu’l-Baha, cited in Wellsprings of Guidance, pp. 84-86.

I see. The problem here though is that this is not a "revelation" from God. This makes very little sense that if God operates in such a way that he doles out direct revelation only every 1000 years (very odd, indeed), that with the rapidity of changes a group of men can somehow replace supposed direct revelation with human insights can possibly speak to the actual need. Why? Why would God, if this is his modus operandi, choose such a flawed system? Why should you consider the House of Justice the same as a prophet? Why should this God choose "1000 year" intervals for direct communication? This make no sense whatsoever to a rational mind. Do you have a rational explanation?

 

[arthra]

Why would God, if this is his modus operandi, choose such a flawed system? Why should you consider the House of Justice the same as a prophet? Why should this God choose "1000 year" intervals for direct communication? This make no sense whatsoever to a rational mind. Do you have a rational explanation?

The House of Justice is governed by a Constitution that limits the areas of it's governance to those issues not covered by the Writings themselves...

To enact laws and ordinances not expressly recorded in the Sacred Texts; to abrogate, according to the changes and requirements of the time, its own enactments; to deliberate and decide upon all problems which have caused difference; to elucidate questions that are obscure; to safeguard the personal rights, freedom and initiative of individuals; and to give attention to the preservation of human honour, to the development of countries and the stability of states;

The Constitution of the Universal House of Justice - 21 April 1963

 

[Windwalker]

The House of Justice is governed by a Constitution that limits the areas of it's governance to those issues not covered by the Writings themselves...

To enact laws and ordinances not expressly recorded in the Sacred Texts; to abrogate, according to the changes and requirements of the time, its own enactments; to deliberate and decide upon all problems which have caused difference; to elucidate questions that are obscure; to safeguard the personal rights, freedom and initiative of individuals; and to give attention to the preservation of human honour, to the development of countries and the stability of states;

The Constitution of the Universal House of Justice - 21 April 1963

But then why have a prophet ever 1000 years? Why not have a governing religious body for all ages instead? I'm not sure you're seeing my point. Is this 1000 year per prophet thing some grand cosmic scheme in the mind of God that governing religious bodies are going to need a "booster shot" because they grow stale as society and culture evolves beyond their present abilities, like on some cosmic time clock? What is the logic beyond this schema?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

But then why have a prophet ever 1000 years? Why not have a governing religious body for all ages instead? I'm not sure you're seeing my point. Is this 1000 year per prophet thing some grand cosmic scheme in the mind of God that governing religious bodies are going to need a "booster shot" because they grow stale as society and culture evolves beyond their present abilities, like on some cosmic time clock? What is the logic beyond this schema?

Bahaullah says, every about a 1000 years, Religion of God needs to be renewed, because the Light of its Laws eventually fade. Thus it needs a new and fresh measure of Light. Abdulbaha farther explains, and says, Religion is like a Tree, when it gets old, it does not give fruits anymore. Thus God plants another Tree. Its knowledge is with God, when exactly its time comes. The 1000 years, is not exact. Sometimes earlier, and sometimes more. But in Bahai view, it is not like every year or century.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I share in this sentiment. But truthfully, would you apply that same critique to aspects of your own religion, that some of its beliefs are out of step with and no longer useful for the modern age, and in fact possibly a hindrance to the furtherance of faith in some cases? Would you be willing to admit that your prophet had ideas that while valid for his day are not really valid or true today, the same way you might say that to a person of another religion with another prophet that those beliefs are no longer appropriate for the modern age?

We need to be consistent in judging whether teachings are relevant today of belong to a bygone era. Did you have a specific example?

Please don't get me wrong, I respect what the Baha'i stand for, I just feel some of the structures in place are truly not up to the task it hopes to accomplish and would be better served without those. I believe all religions need to be allowed to evolve, but when you place an infallible prophet at the center, that makes it hard for people to continue to examine their notions of truth and let go of them as new truth comes along.

Once again, a specific example would help.

The denial of valid science today in favor of the prophet's words and his notions of science from a hundred some years ago, is one quick example that comes to mind.

The harmony of science and religion is a fundamental Baha'i principal.

Any religious belief which is not conformable with scientific proof and investigation is superstition, for true science is reason and reality, and religion is essentially reality and pure reason; therefore, the two must correspond... If we say religion is opposed to science, we lack knowledge of either true science or true religion, for both are founded upon the premises and conclusions of reason, and both must bear its test.
(Excerpt from a 1912 talk given by `Abdu’l-Bahá, son of the Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, while visiting America)

 

[Dawnofhope]

That is close enough so I will not pick on it other than to add that the reason I deny the Baha'i faith is not because of my faith in Christianity, but in the lack of evidence that Baha'ism is true.

I have been a fundamentalist Christian and keep close contact with such Christians through my work. Therefore I feel I have some insight about how Christians think. They generally compare beliefs of other faiths to their own, and when differences arise, as they always do, they reject that religion as being false.

You are the one criticising the Baha'i Faith. Prove that it is untrue so we can consider your arguments.

What criteria do you use to decide which prophets you accept and which you deny? You responded to my conclusion with the premise for that conclusion.

As Christians rely on the words of Jesus and the apostles as recorded in the NT, Baha'is rely on the words of Baha'u'llah and His authorised interpreters Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

The primary value of a theology is eternal unity with God.

The problem with that argument is you are unable to verify directly whether or not someone has achieved 'eternal unity with God'.

I do not know of two mainstream religions that share the same path to achieve this, and without a doubt they don't all share the same path.

All true religions promote love, unity, and virtue.

This has little to do with what you responded to. I said that I would expect a faith to be exclusive because truth is almost always exclusive.

I would appreciate some clarity. You could be arguing that your car is exclusive because truth is exclusive.

I won't speak for all religions but every Baha'i I ever had a discussion with has interpreted the bible differently than all mainstream commentators and theologians.

Thats not necessarily a bad thing.

As I said I don't speak for other religions but I have seen believers from those other religions say exactly the same thing about Baha'ism's mutilation of their texts as well.

Just because others say it, doesn't mean its true.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The "validity" and "Divinity" in all "True" religions? Yes, which ones are true? Each religions tells which other ones are true. For most it is theirs and theirs alone. The others are all false. But by saying that you "recognize the wisdom and Divinity in all true religions", do Baha'i have a list of which religions aren't true?

No list, I'm pleased to say. God has endowed man with the human intellect and the power of discernment.

It is helpful to consider the purpose of religion.

The Purpose of Religion | What Bahá’ís Believe

'True religion' must “unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart.”

When the lamp of religion is obscured, the result is chaos and confusion and the “lights of fairness and justice, of tranquility and peace cease to shine.”

The separations and conflicts between people, carried out in the name of religion, are contrary to its true nature and purpose. “If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act,” said ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. “Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion.”

 

[Dawnofhope]

It isn't a challenge it's an impossibility.

1. Christianity - Christ was crucified.
2. Islam - They neither killed nor crucified Christ.

By the law of non-contradiction both of those claims cannot be true, at most only one.

Good point.

Of course Muhammad could easily have been saying they didn't kill His spirit so really no contradiction at all. It is a good example about how literalist interpretations can cause confusion and divisions when none were intended.

I would argue that the more important contradictions are with science. A literal resurrection is the example already raised (excuse the pun). Interpreting stories in genesis as historic events such as the creation of the world in six days and squeezing all the worlds animals onto Noah's ark are further examples.

 

[Dawnofhope]

No religion is out of date.

Ever wondered why we don't stone people to death for working on the Sabbath anymore?

 

[Windwalker]

We need to be consistent in judging whether teachings are relevant today of belong to a bygone era. Did you have a specific example?

As you saw I did give a specific example in that post which I'll get back to in a minute. But what I wanted to address here is that would you in general apply this same rule of addressing and correcting the errors of your own religion as you do the errors of other religions? Again to me, if you cannot question your prophet, then this creates a real problem for you as his ideas at the time are later proven wrong.

I'm going to link you to that very point I had in a discussion back in this last October with another Baha'i follower, whom I respect and was trying to understand more about the thinking of those in the religion. You can see in that post my addressing the whole thing about "unquestioning belief" and how it leads to potential problems for faith itself when it leads to things like science-denial in order to preserve that faith. I'll address more on that momentarily. Link: What is Christianity support?

Once again, a specific example would help.

You now have two examples...

The harmony of science and religion is a fundamental Baha'i principal.

Any religious belief which is not conformable with scientific proof and investigation is superstition, for true science is reason and reality, and religion is essentially reality and pure reason; therefore, the two must correspond... If we say religion is opposed to science, we lack knowledge of either true science or true religion, for both are founded upon the premises and conclusions of reason, and both must bear its test.
(Excerpt from a 1912 talk given by `Abdu’l-Bahá, son of the Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, while visiting America)

You know, and I hear the words but when put to the test if you keep reading in that very long, yet respectful conversation in the posts before and after the link I just provided above, he was specifically claiming what you just did here, but then denied humans are part of the animal kingdom, denied that humans evolved from earlier animal species, citing the prophet's words as the reason to reject modern science! That's a great error to do that.

What this does is it takes rational people who very clearly accept what the vast majority of all scientists clearly have demonstrated and proven again and again from multiple fields of the sciences, and asks them to ignore all that and favor instead the words a religious man from over one hundred years ago with limited knowledge and understanding of the sciences of his day, let alone a complete ignorance of what we have learned since that time. This very act of science-denial harms spiritual growth. I am very clear about that in my awareness and experience dealing with those who do this. And this to me is one glaring example of being out of step with the modern age.

So as I said, the whole notion of an infallible prophet is a problem for a religion. Are the Baha'i willing to acknowledge he was wrong? Does the House of Justice today advise people to accept the Theory of Evolution as we now understand it today, or do they ask you to just put that on hold until science one day confirms what the prophet thought and essentially reverse its theory? My impression was very strongly the latter, not the former. And that's why it fails to bring people forward into the future, in this example which is pretty huge in my view.

Thoughts?

 

[Vinayaka]

When the lamp of religion is obscured, the result is chaos and confusion and the “lights of fairness and justice, of tranquility and peace cease to shine.”

The separations and conflicts between people, carried out in the name of religion, are contrary to its true nature and purpose. “If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act,” said ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. “Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion.”

I see these very same problems within the Baha'i' itself, yet somehow, in these discussions, Baha'i' adherents don't. Baha'i's are immune to the very same criticisms they have of other faiths. Perhaps you have some insight.

I'll explain. Most of it is Hindu specific though.

"When the lamp of religion is obscured' .... I see that when the Baha'i' practice conversion tactics, the lamp of Hinduism is obscured. the villager who is encouraged to attend Baha'i' meetings instead of the village Ganesha temple has lost his culture, his religion, his faith in Ganesha as the remover of obstacles. When he learns from the Baha'i' that reincarnation is a false doctrine, he loses his patience, because he now feels that he somehow has to hurry, because this is his last life, most especially if part of him is still clinging to the concept of moksha, So the Baha'i' teachigs are obscuring this person's lamp of religion, no?
'The separations and conflicts between people, carried out in the name of religion' ... Throughout this discussion, here, and in the other longer thread, there remains a very clear, Baha'i' versus non 'Baha'i' theme, both in the souls who interact here, and in the discussion itself. So it is clearly conflict and division, them versus us. Those who have an infallible prophet in the name of Baha'u'llah, and those who don't.

Do you see my point, or not?

 

[Windwalker]

Bahaullah says, every about a 1000 years, Religion of God needs to be renewed, because the Light of its Laws eventually fade. Thus it needs a new and fresh measure of Light.

Hinduism going back into the Vedic period is over 3500 years old now. Do you see them as currently needing to be renewed? According to Bahaullah here, they're around 2500 years overdue. Do you agree with this? What about Judaism? Has the Light in that religion faded? What about Christianity? What about Buddhism? Where do you see Buddhism needs your prophet? How has its Light faded? In what ways is Buddhism needing your prophet? Please explain.

Abdulbaha farther explains, and says, Religion is like a Tree, when it gets old, it does not give fruits anymore. Thus God plants another Tree.

I see it differently than this. Religions are constantly evolving themselves organically to changes in their environments. Rather than a new tree, it's more like an acorn becoming
a sapling, becoming a tree, becoming a forest. Are you saying Hinduism and Buddhism should be cut down and replaced with the new tree of the Baha'i religion?

Its knowledge is with God, when exactly its time comes. The 1000 years, is not exact. Sometimes earlier, and sometimes more. But in Bahai view, it is not like every year or century.

Is Hinduism 2500 years overdue to be replaced by the Baha'i religion? Is Buddhism 1500 years overdue, where its Light faded well over a millennium ago? Do you honestly believe Buddhism is in the dark? Do you honestly believe they produce no fruit, despite the fact they are several thousand years old each? What do you have that replaces either of those two religions profoundly deep and spiritual insights? Please explain.

This is another example of where the Baha'i faith is out of step with modern times and understandings. That's three examples now from me in this thread.

 

[Vinayaka]

After some meditation I think much of the problem communicating here is the connotation about the word 'religion'. I recall being being amazed at atheists who criticized 'religion' when really all they were criticising was some forms of Christianity. It was their subconscious just doing what it does best, using its experiences. In midwest America, nearly 99% of 'religion' is some sort of Christianity, so it's only natural for them to make that error.

For Baha'i' the predominant religion that they were against in that location at that time was Islam. Christianity was also there to a lesser extent. That was the connotation or 'religion'.

Most of us, these days, view religion as far broader that that, This forum is a great reflection of how many of us see the term ... a vast array of world views. Our multiplicity of subforums is a reflection. Still there are those folks who have had far less exposure to the wider world views, and retain their older subconscious connotation. So originally I'm guessing the Bab, Baha'u'llah, his son, and grandson, most likely had this limited view, hence the 'manifestations' reflected that. Only later, with better world wide communication, did they learn about dharmic and other faiths. But then, unable to change the model, because of the infallibility syndrome, they just added us (dharmics and others) to the existing model. But as we have seen it doesn't work.