Problems with the Baha'i faith

[Windwalker]

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.

Yes, exactly. I see it as a noble project for its time, but its model cannot accomplish its aim. It only works for the sort of hierarchical religious system with clearly defined authority roles. It assumes only certain "special people" are preselected to tell us truth, and that their word is the final word. This works for keeping ethnocentric, or religiocenteric cohesion, but not much for true spiritual growth beyond that. This works only for those who are religiously still at the place where God is external to us, not yet the Light from within which unfolds subjectively and guides us into Truth.

To me the Goal of religion should be each individual's Enlightenment. But if you are ever 'beneath' the teacher, or the prophet, you will always and ever remain a babe, dependent on them to show you how to think and believe. That works for a while, to guide and train, but it has to be surpassed at some point. Their injunction to question everything, conspicuously does not apply to the prophet himself.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, exactly. I see it as a noble project for its time, but its model cannot accomplish its aim. It only works for the sort of hierarchical religious system with clearly defined authority roles. It assumes only certain "special people" are preselected to tell us truth, and that their word is the final word. This works for keeping ethnocentric, or religiocenteric cohesion, but not much for true spiritual growth beyond that. This works only for those who are religiously still at the place where God is external to us, not yet the Light from within which unfolds subjectively and guides us into Truth.

To me the Goal of religion should be each individual's Enlightenment. But if you are ever 'beneath' the teacher, or the prophet, you will always and ever remain a babe, dependent on them to show you how to think and believe. That works for a while, to guide and train, but it has to be surpassed at some point. Their injunction to question everything, conspicuously does not apply to the prophet himself.

Is there a side of Hinduism and Buddhism that deals with the "ordinary" people in their societies and gives them rules and laws on how to cope with everyday worldly issues? If there is that would be closer to what the Abrahamic religions do. Rules on what to eat, what to wear. If your bull gores your neighbor or tramples his field here is what you must do. Those types of rules is what the Bahai's are saying are the "social" laws and change with each one of their manifestations.

I would question whether or not these kinds of rules ever came from God. Or, were only the people in that culture making the rules that best fit their needs and then attributing them to God. I've asked that several times, but Baha'is have to answer "no", they say they came from God. But I look at all the different cultures, and I don't see how one religion with those types of rules fits all. And, if another official rule changer isn't coming for 1000 years, then are we stuck with these rules? And the Baha'is, I'm sure have some questionable ones.

Can they change them? They say "yes". If it is not a law that came directly from Baha'u'llah. So some laws made by their "infallible" House of Justice, will be changeable. But these "God's Law" based religions have a terrible track record of abuse. At least the Baha'is aren't going to stone people to death, but what will they do for people that don't want to obey the rules? Shun them? Kick them out? I think yes.

They've already done that to people I know. People that questioned the authority, the Baha'i Covenant. A person has to follow and believe in Baha'u'llah, his son, the Guardian, and now the Universal House of Justice. It is there to protect against disunity and to protect against the Baha'i Faith dividing into sects. But, can it go to far and abuse their power?

 

[Windwalker]

Is there a side of Hinduism and Buddhism that deals with the "ordinary" people in their societies and gives them rules and laws on how to cope with everyday worldly issues?

I will defer to Vinayaka to address that in more detail. But short answer, yes in the sense that as you learn to be a compassionate person, it's going to affect all your activities in relation with others, and yourself. A true religion touches every aspect of your life.

I would question whether or not these kinds of rules ever came from God. Or, were only the people in that culture making the rules that best fit their needs and then attributing them to God.

I of course completely agree with you. No better way to make your culture's rules sacred than to mythologize them.

I've asked that several times, but Baha'is have to answer "no", they say they came from God.

That answer poses a lot of problems then, since why would God say certain dietary practices are evil in one era and not in another? Furthermore, why on earth is eating shellfish evil? What does that have to do with one's immortal soul, unless you were strict vegetarians who considered eating the flesh of any animal a sin? Why would God care about our taboos, such as public nudity and the like? God is a lot bigger than all that. The only God that would seem to care would be one made in our own image, the anthropomorphic God.

Can they change them? They say "yes". If it is not a law that came directly from Baha'u'llah. So some laws made by their "infallible" House of Justice, will be changeable. But these "God's Law" based religions have a terrible track record of abuse. At least the Baha'is aren't going to stone people to death, but what will they do for people that don't want to obey the rules? Shun them? Kick them out? I think yes.

You know that shunning and kicking someone out of the tribe is a threat with deep race-memory in our species? That threat spelled potential death for our ancestors as you would be vulnerable to death without the tribe to help you and protect you. It's a powerful coercive tool, just like the threat of stoning someone to death was.

They've already done that to people I know. People that questioned the authority, the Baha'i Covenant. A person has to follow and believe in Baha'u'llah, his son, the Guardian, and now the Universal House of Justice. It is there to protect against disunity and to protect against the Baha'i Faith dividing into sects. But, can it go to far and abuse their power?

I want to make a very clear distinction I think you'll appreciate. There is a whopping big difference between unity and uniformity. If they seek to stop disunity, divisions of ideas and beliefs, to 'disfellowship' is actually trying to force conformity. Unity on the other hand is where a diversity of differing views and beliefs and values can come together in fellowship, despite the differences. That to me, is what a true universal religion will offer the world. One is true unity, the other fake unity. We're all one because we all believe the same, is not unity. It's uniformity.

 

[Vinayaka]

Is there a side of Hinduism and Buddhism that deals with the "ordinary" people in their societies and gives them rules and laws on how to cope with everyday worldly issues?

That stuff is more at the village or family level. It's there in scriptures like the Tirukkural, Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (yamas (restraints) and niyamas (observances) and most likely in the Bhagavad Gita (I'm not familiar with it so don't know for sure). But the key difference is they're seen as guidelines, and are overridden by conscience or common sense, mainly because we take the individual circumstance into consideration, preferring not to overgeneralise.

But really the best code of conduct is the Yamas and Niyamas. They were explained and discussed at length within the Hindu DIR a few years back.

 

[Vinayaka]

Unity on the other hand is where a diversity of differing views and beliefs and values can come together in fellowship, despite the differences. That to me, is what a true universal religion will offer the world.

Most certainly how I see it as well. Especially 'despite the differences'. But rather than have a prophet in common, we do need to have some sense of 'peacefulness' in common. The irony is I would exclude incredibly exclusive or hate-filled faiths from this version of unity in diversity because they're out to destroy, not to co-operate.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes, exactly. I see it as a noble project for its time, but its model cannot accomplish its aim. It only works for the sort of hierarchical religious system with clearly defined authority roles. It assumes only certain "special people" are preselected to tell us truth, and that their word is the final word. This works for keeping ethnocentric, or religiocenteric cohesion, but not much for true spiritual growth beyond that. This works only for those who are religiously still at the place where God is external to us, not yet the Light from within which unfolds subjectively and guides us into Truth.

To me the Goal of religion should be each individual's Enlightenment. But if you are ever 'beneath' the teacher, or the prophet, you will always and ever remain a babe, dependent on them to show you how to think and believe. That works for a while, to guide and train, but it has to be surpassed at some point. Their injunction to question everything, conspicuously does not apply to the prophet himself.

Bahaullah says, that, God is Unseen, and He cannot incarnate Himself, thus He chooses to reveal His words through His Messengers. Farther Abdulbaha says, if His Messengers were not infallible, then they would be unable to convey the Message of God free from error. He then says, for these reasons God has created, Messengers, who outwardly look like human, but their inner reality is not regular human. God created them infallible, so, they may convey His Message. If it was other than this, it would not be possible.
I quote Bahaullah:

"Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person."

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.


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?


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.

In Bahai View Hinduism, Buddhism and other World Religions were founded by the same Source of Truth, thus In Bahai View, and in the Spiritual sense, Bahaullah is the same Buddha, who has come now with a new Mission. He is that same Jesus, or Muhammad or Krishna. Because in Bahai View, there is an Unseen, who cannot incarnate Himself, but He has created Mirrors of Himself, so, He can Manifest His own image in Them, so, that in each one of these Manifestations, the Same God's image appears. However because, each time, He had a different mission, and has appeared among different people with different culture and language, thus their Revelations appear to be different. I would not say Hinduism was 2500 years due. If i remember correctly, Buddha appeared about the same Region that Hindu people lived, so, in a sense, they had another revelation. You see, as a Bahai I do not see Hinduism separate from Buddhism. That they have different names, is not an indication that these Revelations were not progressive in their time. Farther, for example in Bahai view, Jewish Faith was renewed by Christianity, and in turn they were renewed by Islam. However All great World Religions, have a Prophecy regarding Day of Resurrection, or a Last Day, or Last of Cycle, which is a Time when, the World receives a New Life, and everything become renewed. In Bahai View, all these Religions were prophesying of the same Event, and that Event was Revelation of Bahaullah.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

The relationship between the believer and the prophet changes when he decides to become a follower. It is an evolving relationship. There is always questioning and striving to live better and achieve a better understanding. It is a dynamic, fluid relationship, ever changing. It is not static and rigid though there is a framework. When friends become lovers and/or married the relationship changes too.

When I was a Christian and examined the Baha'i Faith I was trying find fault with it so I could reject it and assist Baha'is see the error of their ways. Now I am a Baha'i I allow it to inspire me and to influence my living for the better.

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?

For my first university science degree I majored in zoology, I see no conflict between what is known of biological and the physical sciences and the Baha'i writings. We need to distinguish between known facts and the theories that explain them.

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.

Once its appreciated that we can not prove or disprove the existence of the human soul through scientific means, and humans may have taken a myriad of forms prior to our current one, the problem is resolved.

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.

If science absolutely proves or disproves that which religion teaches, then accept science.

The Baha'i Faith doesn't have a theory of evolution. We believe in science, and science clearly makes a mockery of literal interpretations of the book of genesis.

The one stumbling block is that Abdu'l-Baha said that man was never an animal, meaning he has always had a human soul whether as a single celled organism, something that resembles a chimpanzee, or the diverse forms we now have.

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.

I see the problem you have with it. To you it appears a huge contradiction, whereas I see none whatsoever. I've studied science many years and have three science degrees. Study it for long enough and we are all confronted with the limits of human knowledge and our finite minds.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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?

We are all on a journey to better understanding, Hindus and Baha'i alike, no exception.

When a Baha'i tries to proselytise then the lamp of religion is obscured, because he is acting in contradiction to his own faith.

We can not prove or disprove the existence of the soul through science or reason, let alone reincarnation or life after death. Baha'is and Hindus both believe there is life beyond this one. Its not helpful to labour the point and certainly using strong words such as 'false doctrine' are potentially divisive and unamicable.

There is no us and them in the Baha'i faith. Baha'is are asked to consort with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I wanted to address this.

In Bahai View Hinduism, Buddhism and other World Religions were founded by the same Source of Truth, thus In Bahai View, and in the Spiritual sense, Bahaullah is the same Buddha, who has come now with a new Mission

In actually and fact The Buddha is a average human, Krishna is a god, Christ is a human with the divinity of god (literal), Muhammad a prophet, as so as Zoster.

The fact is Hinduism does not have one source if you are going by gods as if they are prophets and/or educators. Brahma is not the god of abraham; so, the fact is the source is different. @Vinayaka

The fact that The Buddha did not teach nor said himself the essense of any mystical being, essence, or thing excludes him from him getting the Dharma from the same truth. Also, The Buddha is not the main character as you would say Bahuallah, Christ, Moses, and Muhammad.

He is that same Jesus, or Muhammad or Krishna. Because in Bahai View, there is an Unseen, who cannot incarnate Himself, but He has created Mirrors of Himself, so, He can Manifest His own image in Them, so, that in each one of these Manifestations, the Same God's image appears.

The fact: is that Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu. Vishnu is a incarnation of brahma not the god of abraham. An incarnation can't be an incarnation of his incarnation.

The fact: Jesus source did not involve anyone but jesus and his brothers and sisters of christ. If Bahaullah is not a brother and sister of christ, he does not teach the same source as christ does.

What you have are beliefs or opinions. Can you consider the facts from the practitioners of these religions and their religious text as interpreted by them?

However because, each time, He had a different mission, and has appeared among different people with different culture and language, thus their Revelations appear to be different. I would not say Hinduism was 2500 years due.

If i remember correctly, Buddha appeared about the same Region that Hindu people lived, so, in a sense, they had another revelation.

Hinduism came before Buddhism. The Buddha was among Hindu gods. He used to practice Hindu teachings (native teachings of his land) and did not find them useful to enlightenment. The Buddha did not have another revelation. You're putting attention on the educator not the actual teachings. Buddhism is not a prophet-faith.

You see, as a Bahai I do not see Hinduism separate from Buddhism.

The fact: The Buddha does. What you're believing does not reflect Buddhism nor Hinduism. Buddhism is opposed to Hinduism. (I don't know if the other way around is true @Vinayaka)

That they have different names, is not an indication that these Revelations were not progressive in their time.

Christ taught of a being/his father (so did Muhammad and Moses)

Krishna is an incarnation not a prophet/educator

The Buddha is an educator and has no connection of his awakening to god

In Christianity, christ has not yet returned.

In Buddhism, The Buddha was always here past, present, and future. He can't return when he is already here.

Farther, for example in Bahai view, Jewish Faith was renewed by Christianity, and in turn they were renewed by Islam.

The fact: Christianity dwarfed Judaism by creating jesus as equal to his father among other contradictions.

The fact: Christianity put christ at god's equal. Muhammad does not. They can't progress into each other when their beliefs are completely different.

You'd need to change everyone's beliefs for them to run together smoothly.

However All great World Religions, have a Prophecy regarding Day of Resurrection, or a Last Day, or Last of Cycle, which is a Time when, the World receives a New Life, and everything become renewed.

The fact: The Buddha does not have an "end revelation." His awakening was the teachings of life and death. He actually does die and does not come back. He ended rebirth and his teachings are preserved in the Dharma so that other people will become buddhas (lower b) but no one is reincarnation in Buddhism to be The Buddha. To say otherwise is to say rebirth does not exist.

The fact: JW believe there will be a new world. Mainstream christians believe they will go to heaven, have new bodies, and be with god forever. No more earth because they equate that to suffering and sin.

In Bahai View, all these Religions were prophesying of the same Event, and that Event was Revelation of Bahaullah.

The facts:

The Buddha taught (not evangelize) rebirth and karma
Christ taught reconnection with his father

Everyone has a right to their beliefs. If their beliefs do not align with the facts presented in the teachings and practitioners of the faiths, is it logical to still hold these beliefs regardless if you disagree with me or not?

 

[Vinayaka]

We are all on a journey to better understanding, Hindus and Baha'i alike, no exception.

When a Baha'i tries to proselytise then the lamp of religion is obscured, because he is acting in contradiction to his own faith.

We can not prove or disprove the existence of the soul through science or reason, let alone reincarnation or life after death. Baha'is and Hindus both believe there is life beyond this one. Its not helpful to labour the point and certainly using strong words such as 'false doctrine' are potentially divisive and unamicable.

There is no us and them in the Baha'i faith. Baha'is are asked to consort with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship.

It's tricky dealing with 3 Baha'i adherents at the same time, but here goes.

We differ, obviously. And that was my point. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
- Baha'i' often insist they don't proselytise, but many outsiders including myself would beg to differ. Perhaps our definitions of it vary. But just because you call a dog a cat doesn't mean it's a cat.

Baha'i's also claim there is no 'us versus them' yet I and quite likely others do see that a lot as well. It's more or less an extension of the definition of any infallible prophet based religion. You may not see it but I do. I'm just being honest.

But yes, I do agree that throwing things like 'false doctrine' out there isn't really helpful to mutual respect. With Baha'i' it's trickier though because of the built in vagueness, people who do want to do more have to do quite a bit of digging. For example it took me quite a while to figure out Baha'i's didn't believe in reincarnation.

I actually like Baha'i' for the large part. Your commitment to ahimsa more or less overrides whatever philosophical issues we may differ on. Of course 'ahimsa' itself has a range in the definition. I only entered this discussion in the first place to correct some perceived misconceptions about Hinduism I read. I really hesitated to enter this thread. I don't think it's really fair to pick on a particular faith over differing philosophical issues, as threads like these can turn into bashing threads. For that I apologise.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It's tricky dealing with 3 Baha'i adherents at the same time, but here goes.

It is not an easy thing to learn about a new faith. I'm slowly becoming more familiar with the diversity of Hindu belief. The Abrahamic Faiths are familiar territory so to cross over into Hinduism is excellent.

We differ, obviously. And that was my point. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
- Baha'i' often insist they don't proselytise, but many outsiders including myself would beg to differ. Perhaps our definitions of it vary. But just because you call a dog a cat doesn't mean it's a cat.

I do believe there is an enormous amount of damage done by Islam and Christianity and as the newest Abrahamic Faith naturally there are negative associations.

Baha'is are not allowed to aggressively promote their teachings:

Proselytism - Wikipedia

Baha'i's also claim there is no 'us versus them' yet I and quite likely others do see that a lot as well. It's more or less an extension of the definition of any infallible prophet based religion. You may not see it but I do. I'm just being honest.

I appreciate your honesty. I'm generally not comfortable with using the word infallible as it creates barriers where they need not exist. It is helpful to look at the pros and cons of differing beliefs, and when we start saying infallible, it can sound like "we are right because we are right", or "because God says so, so it must be true." Christians often do it, and it turns people off.

I once attended a talk given by a retired Universal House of Justice member and he jokingly threatened to set his hound dogs on any Baha'i that resorted to infallibility arguments.

But yes, I do agree that throwing things like 'false doctrine' out there isn't really helpful to mutual respect. With Baha'i' it's trickier though because of the built in vagueness, people who do want to do more have to do quite a bit of digging. For example it took me quite a while to figure out Baha'i's didn't believe in reincarnation.

Reincarnation is certainly a difference between the two religions. I actually believed in reincarnation before I became a Baha'i even though I was attending a church at the time. I became very depressed to learn the Baha'is did not believe in reincarnation. I had been considering Eastern philosophy and meditating so this belief was very attractive.

I actually like Baha'i' for the large part. Your commitment to ahimsa more or less overrides whatever philosophical issues we may differ on. Of course 'ahimsa' itself has a range in the definition. I only entered this discussion in the first place to correct some perceived misconceptions about Hinduism I read. I really hesitated to enter this thread. I don't think it's really fair to pick on a particular faith over differing philosophical issues, as threads like these can turn into bashing threads. For that I apologise.

I was somewhat surprised that someone had taken the time to criticise the Baha'is, but then its an opportunity to engage in a conversation to clear up misunderstandings. We all believe in ahimsa as you say, and that is much more important than doctrinal differences.

 

[Vinayaka]

Baha'is are not allowed to aggressively promote their teachings:

That may be the official stance, but it's not the reality. There would be no need for Pioneers, no need for pamphlet distribution, no need for door to door, if that were the case. Yes I've had Christians at my door saying they were 'just sharing'.

I realise that different people do interpret that teaching differently. I have never seen you proselytising on this forum, but I have personally reported other Baha'i' adherents for it on these forums. Here it's been mostly when an unsolicited response is 'Here, read this stuff by Baha'u'llah, it'll explain it all." kind of stuff. There was a time that a debate was held on these forums over it, and if I remember correctly the mods sided with the victims.

It has clearly happened in India, and been reported to the authorities. many locals are very cautious, and lump the Baha'i' right up there with evangelical Christians in that regard. I'm not sure what would happen if a fellow Baha'i' reported it to the Baha'i' authorities.

Pioneering (Bahá'í) - Wikipedia

Pioneering is a perfect example of differing. Baha'i's claim it isn't proselytising. I and many others would think it is. As you know, I stand against it because I think it is himsa.

 

[Windwalker]

I once attended a talk given by a retired Universal House of Justice member and he jokingly threatened to set his hound dogs on any Baha'i that resorted to infallibility arguments.

Hi Adrian. Before I give my formal response to your post to me today, I wanted to briefly ask you this question. In another thread recently I had brought up James Fowler's Stages of Faith with you and touched on some of that because you were showing a more mature or developed understanding of these matters of faith than some others. That's of course not a value judgement of their stage of faith, just simply an understanding of where others are at. As the saying goes, "Each stage is adequate; each succeeding stage is more adequate."

So what I am wondering here you seem to have a different, "lighter" understanding of what "infallible" means to you, as well as the person you cite. Yet others of the Baha'i faith I've encountered, in this thread and elsewhere have a stricter, more literal understanding of these symbols, "infallibility" being the one in question here. You say if science shows that something the religion says is wrong, then science is right. I've had others say exactly the opposite to that. I spoke about what I see you're doing as reflective of Fowler's Stage 4, Individuative-Reflective faith. For those who cannot hold the meaning apart from the symbol, that the prophet in this case MUST be right or the meaning is gone, that reflects a Stage 3 faith, the Mythic-Literal, or possibly earlier.

So my question to you is do you see some truth in this? Do you see yourself as holding the truths of the Baha'i faith a little "lighter" than others? Do you recognize a spectrum of different truths held about the same things within your own faith, that the "infallible prophet" means one thing to some that if not absolutely true threatens their faith, while it means something less strictly held to others, such as yourself? This line of discussion is of great interest to me, and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts in particular about this.

I'll reply to the other material later as time permits.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@adrian009

A better word than proselytism is evangalizing.s Not all evangalist seek to convert like proselytism. The definitions focus on christianity (of course) but the general meaning is preaching a doctrine in intent of being a missionary to hat doctrine.

So when all bahai here quote Bahaullah in one full paraphragh without separating text with commentary, it reads as if you are trying to "drill in" bahaullahs words as if reading them will give a light bulb to bahai understanding.

Its usually mixed up on RF as trying to convert (proselytism) not everyone knows the difference Ive seen, so a lot of comments and open ended questions helps relieve the impression of sharing your faith.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I wanted to address this.


In actually and fact The Buddha is a average human, Krishna is a god, Christ is a human with the divinity of god (literal), Muhammad a prophet, as so as Zoster.

Someone else had also asked a similar question. So, I copy my own post here again, for you:

Good point. You are correct. I think this is a worthy topic to consider. They did not Explicitly present Themselves as Manifestations of God, although Most of Them, made allusions to it.
Notice that even Jesus presented Himself in different ways, at different times.
For instance, once He alluded to Himself as 'Prophet', as for instance, He said, 'No Prophet is acceptable in his hometown", and in another instance, He referred to Himself as Son of God, yet, in some instances He said "I and father are one", and in another instance He said " why you call Me good?, no one is good but God". Likewise Muhammad, presented differently, at different times and occasions, if you examine Quran, and Hadithes, you can see this. In the same way, Buddha may have presented Himself, in a way, that, some people see Him as an average Person. This does not mean, He was not a Manifestation of God. He presented Himself according to His mission and requirements.
Now, think for yourself, why for instance Jesus, at different times, presented Himself in different ways?

Bahais believe They were all Manifestations, however due to Their missions and the requirement of Their Revelation, some of Them, presented Themselves as Messengers only, and some as a Teacher, or in different other ways, in different occasions. Let me quote from Bahaullah, who explains the reason for this:

"These attributes of God are not and have never been vouchsafed specially unto certain Prophets, and withheld from others. Nay, all the Prophets of God, His well-favored, His holy, and chosen Messengers, are, without exception, the bearers of His names, and the embodiments of His attributes. They only differ in the intensity of their revelation, and the comparative potency of their
light. Even as He hath revealed: “Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others.” It hath therefore become manifest and evident that within the tabernacles of these Prophets and chosen Ones of God the light of His infinite names and exalted attributes hath been reflected, even though the light of some of these attributes may or may not be outwardly revealed from these luminous Temples to the eyes of men. That a certain attribute of God hath not been outwardly manifested by these Essences of Detachment doth in no wise imply that they Who are the Daysprings of God’s attributes and the Treasuries of His holy names did not actually possess it. Therefore, these illuminated Souls, these beauteous Countenances have, each and every one of them, been endowed with all the attributes of God, such as sovereignty, dominion, and the like, even though to outward seeming they be shorn of all earthly majesty. To every discerning eye this is evident and manifest; it requireth neither proof nor evidence."

With Regards to Revelation of Bahaullah, however, He states that it is the fulfilment of the Prophecies regarding Day of Resurrection, which in World Religions Scriptures, it is the Day, mankind meets with God, as fully represented for example in Quran, the Bible and others.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Someone else had also asked a similar question. So, I copy my own post here again, for you:

Actually, my post were statements of fact not questions.

Good point. You are correct. I think this is a worthy topic to consider. They did not Explicitly present Themselves as Manifestations of God, although Most of Them, made allusions to it.

That is not what either of these people, gods, and prophets taught about themselves and to others. This is your belief not a fact according to their faith not my opinion, not yours, but theirs.

Notice that even Jesus presented Himself in different ways, at different times.
For instance, once He alluded to Himself as 'Prophet', as for instance, He said, 'No Prophet is acceptable in his hometown", and in another instance, He referred to Himself as Son of God, yet, in some instances He said "I and father are one", and in another instance He said " why you call Me good?, no one is good but God".

Jesus didn't "allude" himself a prophet. His disciples called him a high prophet because Jesus represented and presented himself (literally not vaguely) as a messenger (son) of god. Messenger of god; servant to man. (Son of god; son of man)

There is no vagueness in scripture. The whole gospels as a unit talks about the father through the words of his son by "witness" (as some say) of his disciples. You're getting this all third and fourth hand knowledge.

That doesn't mean jesus is divine as in he's god. It just means he presented himself as a mirror of his father's Word. A visible image of an invisible god. Nothing vague. Why does Bahai make it seem mystical? It's very common sense.

Likewise Muhammad, presented differently, at different times and occasions, if you examine Quran, and Hadithes, you can see this. In the same way, Buddha may have presented Himself, in a way, that, some people see Him as an average Person. This does not mean, He was not a Manifestation of God. He presented Himself according to His mission and requirements. Now, think for yourself, why for instance Jesus, at different times, presented Himself in different ways?

The only think I can speak about Muhammad because of a lot of Muslims where I live is no one is equal to the creator. He can't be a manifestation of god and no where in par with the creator. To do so is another version of how mainstream christians see christ.

Bahais believe They were all Manifestations, however due to Their missions and the requirement of Their Revelation, some of Them, presented Themselves as Messengers only, and some as a Teacher, or in different other ways, in different occasions. Let me quote from Bahaullah, who explains the reason for this:

This is your belief.

The Buddha is not a messenger. He's an enlightened Bodhisattva.

Krishna is not a messenger. He is a god.

Christ is not a messenger (according to Christianity not me) he is the son of god and son of man; god's "voice." A messenger or prophet doesn't have that same status as christians place him.

The only two I think you're close to is Muhammad and Moses. But then there are no comments here from Muslims and Jews here, and it is best to get their point of view if you are putting their faith in yours.

Here is what I said to Adrian about quoting Bahaullah: Evangalization Quoting won't make us "get it."

"These attributes of God are not and have never been vouchsafed specially unto certain Prophets, and withheld from others. Nay, all the Prophets of God, His well-favored, His holy, and chosen Messengers, are, without exception, the bearers of His names, and the embodiments of His attributes. They only differ in the intensity of their revelation, and the comparative potency of their
light. Even as He hath revealed: “Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others.” It hath therefore become manifest and evident that within the tabernacles of these Prophets and chosen Ones of God the light of His infinite names and exalted attributes hath been reflected, even though the light of some of these attributes may or may not be outwardly revealed from these luminous Temples to the eyes of men. That a certain attribute of God hath not been outwardly manifested by these Essences of Detachment doth in no wise imply that they Who are the Daysprings of God’s attributes and the Treasuries of His holy names did not actually possess it. Therefore, these illuminated Souls, these beauteous Countenances have, each and every one of them, been endowed with all the attributes of God, such as sovereignty, dominion, and the like, even though to outward seeming they be shorn of all earthly majesty. To every discerning eye this is evident and manifest; it requireth neither proof nor evidence."

With Regards to Revelation of Bahaullah, however, He states that it is the fulfilment of the Prophecies regarding Day of Resurrection, which in World Religions Scriptures, it is the Day, mankind meets with God, as fully represented for example in Quran, the Bible and others.

My whole point is why take Bahallauh's view: he is not a Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, nor Jew.

You're whole premise is seeing someone else's religions through the eyes of your prophet. I understand if you say they are wrong and you are right. But what's confusing the mess out of me is you guys say you respect other religions and let them do their thing but then still quote Bahaullah as if he has a better interpretation of Hindu scripture (for example) than Hinduis themselves.

That's completely, wrong.

 

[arthra]

I wanted to share a couple of things... You can take a given topic... such as "Peace" and find similarities in all the past dispensations... Here's a few examples..

Krishna rose amidst the monarchs, strove the tumult to appease,
And unto the angry suitors spake in words of righteous peace,
Monarchs bowed to Krishna's mandate, left Panchala's festive land,
Arjun took the beauteous princess, gently led her by the hand.

(Hindu, Mababharata (R. Dutt, abridged tr))

We worship the (sacrificial) words correctly uttered, and Sraosha (Obedience) the blessed, and
the good Ashi, (the blest order of our rites), and Nairya-sangha. And we worship the
victorious Peace as the unprostrated and unmoved.

(The Zend-Avesta, Avesta - Visperad)

In the same way that the jasmine drops its withered flowers, you too should discard desire and aversion, bhikkhus.
Peaceful of body, peaceful of speech and with his mind thoroughly stilled, the bhikkhu who has rid himself of attachment
to the world - is called "at peace".

(Buddhist, Dhammapada - Sayings of the Buddha 1 (tr. J. Richards))



And David sent ten young men, and David said unto the young men: 'Get you up to Carmel, and go to Nabal, and greet him in my name; 1 25,6 and thus ye shall say: All hail! and peace be both unto thee, and peace be to thy house, and peace be unto all that thou hast.

(Nev'im (Prophets), Shmuel (Samuel))

14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

(King James Bible, John)

And if the two parties of the believers quarrel, then make peace between them; and if one of the twain outrages the other, then fight the party that has committed the outrage until it return to God's bidding; and if it do return then make peace between them with equity, and be just; verily, God loves the just. The believers are but brothers, so make peace between your two brethren and fear God, haply ye may obtain mercy!

(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 49 - The Inner Chambers)

Peace in this world, peace in the next world and peace forever, remembering Him in meditation. Chant forever the Name of the Lord of the Universe.

(Shri Guru Granth Sahib, Section 14 - Raag Dhanaasaree)

I charge you all that each one of you concentrate all the thoughts of your heart on love and unity. When a thought of war comes, oppose it by a stronger thought of peace. A thought of hatred must be destroyed by a more powerful thought of love. Thoughts of war bring destruction to all harmony, well-being, restfulness and content.
Thoughts of love are constructive of brotherhood, peace, friendship, and happiness.
When soldiers of the world draw their swords to kill, soldiers of God clasp each other's hands! So may all the savagery of man disappear by the Mercy of God, working through the pure in heart and the sincere of soul. Do not think the peace of the world an ideal impossible to attain!
Nothing is impossible to the Divine Benevolence of God.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 28)

It's best I think to focus on what we have in common and what is in our best interest is peace...

The vision of the Parliament of the World's Religions is of a just, peaceful and sustainable world in which:

• Religious and spiritual communities live in harmony and contribute to a better world from their riches of wisdom and compassion.
• Religious and cultural fears and hatreds are replaced with understanding and respect.
• People everywhere come to know and care for their neighbors.
• The richness of human and religious diversity is woven into the fabric of communal, civil, societal and global life.
• The world's most powerful and influential institutions move beyond narrow self-interest to realize common good.
• The Earth and all life are cherished, protected, healed and restored.
• All people commit to living out their highest values and aspirations.

and

Search Results For: peace | Parliament of the World's Religions

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

This also brings up the second problem that I have with it, it seems to suggest that anyone who doesn't follow those religions somehow are the "main" or only "real" ones. Since they are not recognizing the legitimacy of other religions by naming their deities or prophets they are basically saying they are not "real" and don't have a connection to the same god. That, or it's like they don't acknowledge the other deities.

Then my third issue is that it fails to recognize the inherent differences of the religions, their philosophies and theology. Some of the religions they say come from the same god are radically different enough to make such a claim highly suspect. Buddhism is very different from Islam, for example. Guatama Buddha is recorded as saying things that when compared to Islam clash very strongly. I am very sure many Muslim posters here can bring up texts contemporary to Muhammad that prove this, and Buddhists can bring up texts contemporary or close to Guatama as well. Guatama didn't even see god as relevant and was agnostic! So how could he be a prophet of a god?

I can only say I've talked to people of the Baha'i faith once in person, but many times online. I always get this sense that they want to fit round pegs into square holes, and sometimes don't seem to totally understand the various religions. I can understand that there are similarities, some might even be compatible or in some ways almost the same, depending on sect or otherwise... but that doesn't make them the same, and it's rather wrong to act like they became 'changed' over time but were all originally very alike or revised when we have contemporary records proving otherwise.

If God is so inept as to provide the truth the first time, why should we trust the newest Baha'i version either? On the surface it might seem like a nice way to "unite" all the different religions but it doesn't hold up after scrutiny. Even consider that religions like Hinduism and Buddhism are NOT monotheistic, why do people of the Baha'i faith try to act like they are?

"On the surface it might seem like a nice way to "unite" all the different religions but it doesn't hold up after scrutiny."

What is bad about it? Please
What points come up true after the scrutiny?Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

As a former Baha'i myself, I think your points are basically correct but my heart still makes me like Baha'is although the religion is vulnerable for such criticism. And there is more strangeness than an outsider even realizes.

My heart doesn't allow me to be so critical though.

What made one to leave Bahaism or Baha'u'llah?
Please mention the points.
Regards