Problems with the Baha'i faith

[InvestigateTruth]

Which book Bahaullah means here? Kindly give name of the book and the verse with the context verses. Please
Regards

Everything that Bahaullah is ever revealed, is a Part of the Book of God. In this instance, Bahaullah is referring to All His Revelation as 'Book'.

For example Muhammad, during His mission, which was 23 years, revealed 114 Surrahs. Later, these Surrahs were put together as Chapters of One Book, which is called Quran.
Bahaullah's mission lasted 40 years, during which Bahaullah revealed more than 17000 Tablets. Even what you see commonly called Iqan, is a Tablet, that according to Bahai History, Bahaullah revealed it in 2 days only.
A Tablet means, a letter, which is written in response to questions of others...or as a Surrah, like chapters of Quran.
Bahaullah referred to All His Tablets and Works together, as One Book called Aqdas. This should not be confused by the Book of Law of Bahaullah, which is also called Aqdas. But, now, if Bahai's were to collect all 17000 works of Bahaullah into only One Book, it would be a huge Book with tens of thousands of pages. That is not practical, like Quran to put all of them in One Book. So, Bahais, instead, they made selections of His Tablets in different Books. For example 'Gleanings from the Writings of Bahaullah', is a collection of Tablets or Writings. However, some of the Tablets of Bahaullah, is like an independent Book. Those are kept as individual Books. For example Iqan is such a Book.

 

[Vinayaka]

Which book Bahaullah means here? Kindly give name of the book and the verse with the context verses. Please
Regards

This is a really good question, Paarsurrey. So often people refer to 'the book' or the good book' making some unrealistic assumption that the rest of us should know what it is. It's like me asking you, 'Did you go to the movie?" lol

 

[1robin]

We have agreement about twenty four principles Christianity and the Baha'i Faith have in common. These principles cover much of what the bible teaches.

Did you mean 100 words or 100%? If 100 words, substantiate the claim.

I said that what you posted was about 100 words which we may agree upon. Lets be generous and say it was 500 words. That means that you may have shown that we have .0006% agreement so far.

How about defining Christianity? The problem you have is selective bias. You refer to the conservative Christians when is suits you and to all those who would consider themselves Christian in the same post. Christians are a theologically diverse group, with a long history of schism and division. Many Christian groups want to consider themselves as being the true Christians and seem ready to criticise other Christians. You are no different.

Exactly wrong. I subscribe to what I experienced and what I interpreted without influence of any other person. I did not even pick a church until my core doctrine was pretty firm.

There is no universal agreement amongst all Christians about primary doctrines. Perhaps you could spell out the primary doctrines you believe in, rather than purporting to speak for all Christians.

No one was talking about universal agreement. I originally said most Christians agree on most things. So I don't know what your talking about.

You have just provided an example of how Christians have distorted their own religion. The justification of Grace by Faith alone is theologically problematic and has resulted in moral laxity and bigotry amongst Christians. Baha'is believe that it is both faith and deeds that are required for salvation, not faith alone.

No, I told you a story then I quoted a verse verbatim.

I'm certain you believe that, but it exemplifies the problem with a religion whose sacred writings are nearly two thousand years old.

No, 2000 years ago was when the covenant began and it has not been superseded. It is to be the sole arbiter having absolute sovereignty over all claim to revelation.

BTW the verse you gave about Paul was from a specific letter, to a specific church, about a specific problem it had. It is not some universal gag order. Invest in a good commentary.

Of course that sovereignty has been abused. The Christian view of men dominating women is an example of Christianity's struggle to adapt to the modern world.

I say X exists and you respond with X has been abused. That's like telling someone dinosaurs once lived and they respond that they would make for bad pets. Christianity is thriving in the modern world.

Yet there are no laws in the bible abolishing slavery. This contributed to Christian countries and empires promoting slavery for centuries and their reluctance to abolish such practices.

In my country 300,000 Christians died to free the slaves, and the man who had more to do with abolishing slavery in my country was a Christian. The NT does not allow for slavery in any form. The OT found slavery existing universally and made the most benevolent laws concerning slavery in the entire ANE. Babylon had a law that put to death anyone who did not turn a runaway slave in, Judaism had a law making it illegal to turn a runaway slave in. Slaves were the only group of people free to settle on any Jewish tribes land. You might want to recalibrate and try again.

That is true and now democracy is becoming the established means for governing human affairs. The Bible has close to nothing to say about it.

The NT (you know, the part of the bible that actually applies) concerns heavenly kingdoms not earthly kingdoms. Christ said his kingdom was not of this world.

I'm highlighting some of the problems that have accounted for Christianity's crisis and decline in the West.

How many times do I have to say that Christianity grows by the equivalent of Nevada's entire population every year. It would not surprise me if the number of Christians that convert in a single year was not larger than the total Baha'i that exist combined.

As people living the modern age we do not merely occupy a private sphere, but are active participants in a social order. Although many of the revealed truths of Christianity remain valid, the daily experience of an individual in the twenty first century is unimaginably removed from the two thousand years ago when Christ came. Democratic decision making has fundamentally altered the relationship of the individual to authority. With growing confidence and growing success, women justly insist on their right to full equality with men. Revolutions in science and technology change not only the functioning but the conception of society and existence itself. Universal education and an explosion of new fields of knowledge open the way to insights that stimulate social mobility and integration, and create new opportunities. Nuclear energy, sexual identity, ecological stress and the use of wealth raise, at the very least, social questions that have no precedent. These, and the countless other changes affecting every aspect of human life, have brought into being a new world of daily choices for both society and its members. What has not changed is the inescapable requirement of making such choices, whether for better or worse. It is here that the spiritual nature of the contemporary crisis comes into focus because most of the decisions are not merely practical but moral. In large part, therefore, loss of faith in traditional religion has been an inevitable consequence of failure to discover in it the guidance required to live with modernity, successfully and with assurance.

Throughout the world, people raised in a Christian frame of reference find themselves abruptly thrown into close association with others whose beliefs and practices appear at first glance irreconcilably different from their own. The differences can and often do give rise to defensiveness and conflict. In many cases, however, the effect is to prompt a reconsideration of doctrine and to encourage efforts at discovering values held in common. The support enjoyed by various interfaith activities doubtless owes a great deal to response of this kind among the general public. Inevitably, with such approaches comes a questioning of religious doctrines that inhibit association and understanding. If people whose beliefs appear to be fundamentally different from one’s own nevertheless live moral lives that deserve admiration, what is it that makes one’s own faith superior to theirs? Alternatively, if all of the great religions share certain basic values in common, do not conservative Christian's attachments run the risk of merely reinforcing unwanted barriers between an individual and his neighbors?

Of the two of us, I am the only one that knows what being a Christian is, and most of what you said just isn't so.

Each one of the world's independent religions is set in the mould created by its authoritative scripture and its history. As it cannot refashion its system of belief in a manner to derive legitimacy from the authoritative words of its Founder, it likewise cannot adequately answer the multitude of questions posed by social and intellectual evolution.

You only need to evolve if you couldn't get it right the first time.

Jesus had next to no followers at the time of His crucifixion (even Peter had denied Him thrice), yet it has become the religion with the most adherents today. Most Jews rejected Jesus. We need to understand the meaning behind the numbers and the trends.

Jesus specifically chose to have 12 apostles to represent the twelve original Jewish tribes. As far as followers, that is the reason the priestly class wanted him killed. He was taking all their followers and therefor their power, so they invented a charge that had a capitol punishment and tried him in the middle of the night so his followers wouldn't stop them. You keep trying to explain things that just don't exist.

Not in West. Do you really want to look at the break down in numbers. One hundred years ago most (90+ %) of New Zealanders would have considered them selves Christian. The numbers are now less than 50% and falling rapidly. This is a trend in many Western countries.

It's growing by leaps and bounds. What specific hill, city, island, or nation goes up or down is irrelevant.

Christianity has never compelled anyone to become Christians!?

We were talking about modern growth trends. Why are you picking on random events from random times.

You were the one who brought up Islam by highlighting the sura in regards to Christ. Neither of us are Muslims. Let's stick to considering the Baha'i Faith and Christianity.

Nope, Baha'ism contains Islamic beliefs therefor they are relevant. However I will bet you keep talking about Islam anyway.

Not true. Many Muslims regard the gospels as corrupted whereas Baha'is considered them to be relatively authentic and authoritative.

And then you corrupt them. Good grief, you say to forget Islam then your next statement is about Islam.

I'm pleased you are not a YEC but you have to admit Christians and Scientists have a long history of conflict.

No, scientists (who were also Christians) and the Catholic church had some problems at times. However 78% of Nobel Laureates have been Christians, much of the rest Jewish, is there a Baha'i Nobel winner?


Leonardo da Vinci
Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Sir Isaac Newton
Gottfried Leibniz
Adam Smith
Antoine Lavoisier
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Michael Faraday
Sir George Stokes
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
Thomas Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
Nicola Tesla
Max Planck
Wright Brothers
Guglielmo Marconi
Niels Bohr
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Michael Polanyi
Johannes Gutenberg
Enrico Fermi
Allan Sandage

The 50 Most Influential Christians of All Time

Looks like they work pretty well together. Does Baha'i have a equivalent who's who of science list?

I'm highlighting Christianity's extensive history of bigotry, violence, and harm to others. It may be irrelevant to you but its part of why masses are leaving Christianity in the West.

I have never denied Christianity's failures, so this is irrelevant as well.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I said that what you posted was about 100 words which we may agree upon. Lets be generous and say it was 500 words. That means that you may have shown that we have .0006% agreement so far.

I doubt if you read the twenty four principles that I wrote. I asked you to substantiate your claim that we had such different beliefs.

Did you mean 100 words or 100%? If 100 words, substantiate the claim.

You couldn't of course.

Here are two of my principles:

The OT prophets have provided God's guidance to the Jewish peoples

The Bible has a record of Jesus, the apostles, and the OT prophets

These two extremely broad principles cover over 90% of the bible. I suppose if you see such disagreement between our beliefs then a significant proportion of what you believe in may not be in the bible.

I asked you to put forward the doctrines you belief in.

There is no universal agreement amongst all Christians about primary doctrines. Perhaps you could spell out the primary doctrines you believe in, rather than purporting to speak for all Christians.

You haven't of course.

Let me assist you by listing some where we are likely to have differences:

The sinful nature of mankind and its origins with Adam's fall
Physical resurrection
The Triune nature of the Godhead
The manner in which Christ's sacrifice on the cross saves
The existence of a physical being called Satan
The exclusivity of Jesus's claims
The return of Jesus: when, its purpose and what it will accomplish
The nature of the afterlife
The Divinity of Christ

Feel free to add to the list.

Exactly wrong. I subscribe to what I experienced and what I interpreted without influence of any other person. I did not even pick a church until my core doctrine was pretty firm.

You were also outlining a core belief amongst many conservatives that salvation is by grace or faith alone and not by deeds. You have chosen not to defend it.

No one was talking about universal agreement. I originally said most Christians agree on most things. So I don't know what your talking about.

I doubt if they do. Christians appear to be an irreconcilably divisive group but happy to hear the evidence to the contrary.

No, 2000 years ago was when the covenant began and it has not been superseded. It is to be the sole arbiter having absolute sovereignty over all claim to revelation.

The Covenant that Christ brought made the Old Covenant obsolete? You can make claims of absolute sovereignty but can you support them? You can claim that the Christian Covenant is still relevant, but is it any more relevant than the Covenant of Moses was at the time of Christ?

BTW the verse you gave about Paul was from a specific letter, to a specific church, about a specific problem it had. It is not some universal gag order. Invest in a good commentary.

Remarkable then how it made its way into authoritative scripture and how it is so strongly worded. You views would have some credibility if the history of Christianity hadn't been so male dominated. How many women were on your list of the fifty most influential Christians? Not surprisingly, not a single one.

I say X exists and you respond with X has been abused. That's like telling someone dinosaurs once lived and they respond that they would make for bad pets. Christianity is thriving in the modern world.

By what criteria do you define thriving? It appears archaic and in decline to me.

In my country 300,000 Christians died to free the slaves, and the man who had more to do with abolishing slavery in my country was a Christian. The NT does not allow for slavery in any form. The OT found slavery existing universally and made the most benevolent laws concerning slavery in the entire ANE. Babylon had a law that put to death anyone who did not turn a runaway slave in, Judaism had a law making it illegal to turn a runaway slave in. Slaves were the only group of people free to settle on any Jewish tribes land. You might want to recalibrate and try again.

Are you referring to the American Civil war 1861-65? That is over 1,800 years after Christ was crucified! A little late in the piece to claiming Christianity didn't promote slavery, especially when it had an appalling track record for promoting slavery and doing nothing about it beforehand.

Who killed the 300,000 Christians? Other Christians of course.

So not one verse you could provide from the NT that suggested slavery was not OK?

To the contrary the apostles reinforced slavery as a social norm.

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior.
Titus 2:9-10

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
1 Peter 2:18

 

[Dawnofhope]

The NT (you know, the part of the bible that actually applies) concerns heavenly kingdoms not earthly kingdoms. Christ said his kingdom was not of this world.

Not true.

Did Jesus not say:

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Matthew 6:9-10

How many times do I have to say that Christianity grows by the equivalent of Nevada's entire population every year.

Keep saying it until you believe it, because unless you provide some citation and reference that establishes the facts and puts this figure into context its meaningless.

Here's some actual data that clearly demonstrates the rapidly declining number of Christians in your country.

America’s Changing Religious Landscape

The number of Christians in USA is currently declining by 1% of the population each year, so essentially haemorrhaging similarly to the majority of Western countries like mine where Christianity was once strong.

And here's some data to assist us understand why.

Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind

Basically the lights of faith have gone out and people have just stopped believing.

But keep saying Nevada but unless you provide data it looks like you are avoiding and denying reality.

Of the two of us, I am the only one that knows what being a Christian is, and most of what you said just isn't so.

That is just you saying I'm right and you are wrong. I'm just as much a faithful believer in Christ as you are. Only God can judge

You only need to evolve if you couldn't get it right the first time.

That's probably how the Jews felt about the Mosaic Covenant in regards to Christ.

Jesus specifically chose to have 12 apostles to represent the twelve original Jewish tribes. As far as followers, that is the reason the priestly class wanted him killed. He was taking all their followers and therefor their power, so they invented a charge that had a capitol punishment and tried him in the middle of the night so his followers wouldn't stop them. You keep trying to explain things that just don't exist.

I've provided my proof. Prove the twelve apostles represented the twelve tribes.

It's growing by leaps and bounds. What specific hill, city, island, or nation goes up or down is irrelevant.

But its very relevant, because if you want to refer to the Christianized West that's produced all these scientists, it is the same science that is eroding confidence in traditional Christian belief that I have demonstrated above.

We were talking about modern growth trends. Why are you picking on random events from random times.

You referred to Islam coercing faith in Islam. Christianity has a long history of doing exactly the same thing, even in modern times.

No, scientists (who were also Christians) and the Catholic church had some problems at times. However 78% of Nobel Laureates have been Christians, much of the rest Jewish, is there a Baha'i Nobel winner?

Consistently around 40% of Christians in the USA have believed in genesis literally for the last few decades. They haven't all been Catholic.

It is excellent that so many Christians have been recipients of the Nobel prizes. Do you think there could be some cultural and historic factors at work here that have little to do with religious affiliation? I would say given the whole debacle around Galileo and then Darwin, two Christians considered to be the most influential according to your link, scientists have had their success in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Where in the NT is the study of science and higher learning encouraged.

The 50 Most Influential Christians of All Time

Looks like they work pretty well together. Does Baha'i have a equivalent who's who of science list?

I don't deny that there have been many outstanding people who were Christians. What's your point? Perhaps you are trying to deflect attention away from Christianity's uneasy relationship with science in your own country.

It seems there are much fewer Christians choosing science as a career in the USA than compared to the general population.

Scientists and Belief

I have never denied Christianity's failures, so this is irrelevant as well.

It is relevant when you start making criticisms of other religions and ignoring the problems with your own.

You criticise the Baha'i faith and say we are mangling your religion. The truth is, that it is Christians that have mangled their own religion over the centuries and we are simply setting the record straight.

The Baha'i Faith is a modern progressive religion that has spread through out the globe despite persecution and many of its early adherents being put to death.

Baha'is embrace diversity and acknowledge the spiritual value of the other great world religions. Christianity has a long history of antipathy towards peoples of different faiths.

Baha'is believe in the equality of men and women. Christianity has a long history of male domination and suppression of women's rights.

The Baha'i faith teaches the harmony between science and religion. Christianity has a long history of suppressing scientists who would make inquiries that challenge the church's beliefs.

The Baha'i faith promotes peace and tolerance. Christianity has often, despite its own teachings contributed to war, violence, and intolerance.

The Baha'i faith believes in freedom of choice in regards to religious adherence. Christianity has a long history of coercion.

Many Christians declare themselves to be the only ones with a true religion and everyone else wrong including the Baha'is. Is that the debate you wish to have with the Baha'i Faith?

 

[1robin]

I doubt if you read the twenty four principles that I wrote. I asked you to substantiate your claim that we had such different beliefs.

Yes I did, I was expecting to find something we disagreed upon, but they were all close enough. Why are you invested in my not having read them? We have spent hours and thousands of words concerning what we disagree on, why are you asking for more examples? I do not believe that any faith outside Christianity and Judaism come from God. I believe Christ had a physical body after resurrection. I believe we will have physical bodies after resurrection. I don't believe Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí was a prophet. Is that enough?

You couldn't of course.

Here are two of my principles:

You seemed to respond to yourself here. I am confused.

These two extremely broad principles cover over 90% of the bible. I suppose if you see such disagreement between our beliefs then a significant proportion of what you believe in may not be in the bible.

I asked you to put forward the doctrines you belief in.



You haven't of course.

Let me assist you by listing some where we are likely to have differences:

The sinful nature of mankind and its origins with Adam's fall
Physical resurrection
The Triune nature of the Godhead
The manner in which Christ's sacrifice on the cross saves
The existence of a physical being called Satan
The exclusivity of Jesus's claims
The return of Jesus: when, its purpose and what it will accomplish
The nature of the afterlife
The Divinity of Christ

Feel free to add to the list.

In the above you responded to your self again. I am not sure what to make of it.

You were also outlining a core belief amongst many conservatives that salvation is by grace or faith alone and not by deeds. You have chosen not to defend it.

Ok, now your back to me again. I did not say anything about not defending grace based salvation. It is in fact the doctrine I know most about.

I doubt if they do. Christians appear to be an irreconcilably divisive group but happy to hear the evidence to the contrary.

Since we all have the same set of scriptures the evidence is on my side. Unless you spent your whole life traveling and polling Christians about specific doctrines this is meaningless.

The Covenant that Christ brought made the Old Covenant obsolete? You can make claims of absolute sovereignty but can you support them? You can claim that the Christian Covenant is still relevant, but is it any more relevant than the Covenant of Moses was at the time of Christ?

What's sovereignty, a covenant, Christ, different faiths, a doctrine? I already gave you scriptures where Christ claimed both exclusivity and sovereignty so what other sovereignty are you asking about? The covenant of Moses was relevant at the time of Christ. Christ came to fulfill it, he did so.

Remarkable then how it made its way into authoritative scripture and how it is so strongly worded. You views would have some credibility if the history of Christianity hadn't been so male dominated. How many women were on your list of the fifty most influential Christians? Not surprisingly, not a single one.

It does not have any special emphasis. Unlike core universal doctrines multiply attested by multiple authors this verse is about a problem in a specific church. For example no church I have ever heard of has this verse the foundation for a creed. Are you claiming Christianity is misogynistic? If so you must also be saying it was rightly misogynistic at one time but has been superseded by some sexual equality doctrine. That's a new one.

By what criteria do you define thriving? It appears archaic and in decline to me.

Growth in numbers, spreading by geography, total in numbers, etc...... In what objective criteria is it declining?

Are you referring to the American Civil war 1861-65? That is over 1,800 years after Christ was crucified! A little late in the piece to claiming Christianity didn't promote slavery, especially when it had an appalling track record for promoting slavery and doing nothing about it beforehand.

Nope, just that it has such a long history, has such a high population, and has existed in so many cultures you can find any extreme you want.

Who killed the 300,000 Christians? Other Christians of course.

The movement to violently overthrow slavery as an institution occurred in an almost universally Christian culture. Slavery usually had no defenders because no one was attacking it. Your also leaving out all the history about states rights and the original revolution which the south merely thought it was having to fight again. The civil war is far more complex than you seem to realize.

So not one verse you could provide from the NT that suggested slavery was not OK?

I do not remember being asked for one. You can start here:

John 8:36
36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/freedom-bible-verses/

and keep reading. BTW the bible does not say anything about quantum mechanics, is it therefor in favor of it?

To the contrary the apostles reinforced slavery as a social norm.

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior.
Titus 2:9-10

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
1 Peter 2:18

Slave is an English word. The bible was not written in English.

Young's Literal Translation
Servants -- to their own masters are to be subject, in all things to be well-pleasing, not gainsaying,

Young's Literal Translation
The domestics! be subjecting yourselves in all fear to the masters, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the cross;


As you can see, if you wish to, slavery is not necessarily the correct translation. Servant seems more appropriate. Even if you go back to the old testament servant or bondsman seems to be the more appropriate translation. You got to do your research. If you follow either of the links I gave you will find the original words used and their meanings.

 

[1robin]

Not true.

Did Jesus not say:

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Matthew 6:9-10

Actually this was a typing mistake. I meant to say the NT's primary message was spiritual.

New International Version
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

The OT was designed to run a nation, the NT was intended to govern the heart.

Keep saying it until you believe it, because unless you provide some citation and reference that establishes the facts and puts this figure into context its meaningless.

Here's some actual data that clearly demonstrates the rapidly declining number of Christians in your country.

America’s Changing Religious Landscape

The number of Christians in USA is currently declining by 1% of the population each year, so essentially haemorrhaging similarly to the majority of Western countries like mine where Christianity was once strong.

And here's some data to assist us understand why.

Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind

Basically the lights of faith have gone out and people have just stopped believing.

But keep saying Nevada but unless you provide data it looks like you are avoiding and denying reality.

Why would I make up such a bizarre statistical comparison? Knock yourself out:

Christian population growth is the population growth of the global Christian community. According to a 2011 Pew Research Center survey, there were 2.19 billion Christians around the world in 2010, more than three times as much from the 600 million recorded in 1910.[1] According to a 2015 Pew Research Center study, by 2050, the Christian population is expected to be 2.9 billion.[2]

Protestantism is one of the most dynamic religious movements in the contemporary world.[3] From 1960 to 2000, the global growth of the number of reported Evangelical Protestants grew three times the world's population rate, and twice that of Islam.[4]
Christian population growth - Wikipedia
The Past Five Years of Christian Growth Worldwide | Lausanne World Pulse Archives
Christians
Growth of the Church

That is just you saying I'm right and you are wrong. I'm just as much a faithful believer in Christ as you are. Only God can judge

I can't remember the context for this one.

That's probably how the Jews felt about the Mosaic Covenant in regards to Christ.

How anyone feels about the truth is irrelevant.

New Living Translation
If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant to replace it.

I've provided my proof. Prove the twelve apostles represented the twelve tribes.

Where is it?

Again, knock your self out.
http://jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com/twelve-new-leaders-twelve-old-tribes-john/
12 Disciples
Jesus and the Twelve
Who were the 12 disciples? | Bibleinfo.com

But its very relevant, because if you want to refer to the Christianized West that's produced all these scientists, it is the same science that is eroding confidence in traditional Christian belief that I have demonstrated above.

I said that the modern scientific revolution occurred in Christian Europe. I said that 78% of Nobel Laureates are Christians. I also gave a list to someone with science's great scholars. Which one are you denying?

You referred to Islam coercing faith in Islam. Christianity has a long history of doing exactly the same thing, even in modern times.

As is so often stated. Christianity periodically reviews it's self in the attempt to do away with the bad and keep the good. Islam does not seem to follow the same path. However your talking about Church practices not revelation it's self.

Consistently around 40% of Christians in the USA have believed in genesis literally for the last few decades. They haven't all been Catholic.

I linked Catholicism with coercion not a young earth.

It is excellent that so many Christians have been recipients of the Nobel prizes. Do you think there could be some cultural and historic factors at work here that have little to do with religious affiliation? I would say given the whole debacle around Galileo and then Darwin, two Christians considered to be the most influential according to your link, scientists have had their success in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Where in the NT is the study of science and higher learning encouraged.

Of course there are other factors. However an atheist who wrote a multi-volume work on the causes of the scientific revolution said that their faith was the primary motivation.

I don't deny that there have been many outstanding people who were Christians. What's your point? Perhaps you are trying to deflect attention away from Christianity's uneasy relationship with science in your own country.

It seems there are much fewer Christians choosing science as a career in the USA than compared to the general population.

You keep making claims about science eroding Christianity despite all the evidence. I assumed you simply lacked the evidence. What does the USA have to do with anything?

Scientists and Belief

Christianity is 2000 years old, why are you posting data about the last 8 years?

It is relevant when you start making criticisms of other religions and ignoring the problems with your own.

You criticise the Baha'i faith and say we are mangling your religion. The truth is, that it is Christians that have mangled their own religion over the centuries and we are simply setting the record straight.

The Baha'i Faith is a modern progressive religion that has spread through out the globe despite persecution and many of its early adherents being put to death.

Baha'is embrace diversity and acknowledge the spiritual value of the other great world religions. Christianity has a long history of antipathy towards peoples of different faiths.

Baha'is believe in the equality of men and women. Christianity has a long history of male domination and suppression of women's rights.

The Baha'i faith teaches the harmony between science and religion. Christianity has a long history of suppressing scientists who would make inquiries that challenge the church's beliefs.

The Baha'i faith promotes peace and tolerance. Christianity has often, despite its own teachings contributed to war, violence, and intolerance.

The Baha'i faith believes in freedom of choice in regards to religious adherence. Christianity has a long history of coercion.

Many Christians declare themselves to be the only ones with a true religion and everyone else wrong including the Baha'is. Is that the debate you wish to have with the Baha'i Faith?

I thought that my belief in the exclusivity was assumed. I believe in Christian exclusivity because I believe in Christ's exclusive claims. He said there is only one narrow road, it didn't originate with me.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes I did, I was expecting to find something we disagreed upon, but they were all close enough.

I thought it was important to establish the common ground we have. Your response largely dismissed what I said. I found it astounding.

Why are you invested in my not having read them?

If you read it fine. I think the manner in which we communicate is just as important as what we communicate.

We have spent hours and thousands of words concerning what we disagree on, why are you asking for more examples?

We have spent quite some time exchanging views now you mention it. It started with a discussion about the Historic Jesus and the resurrection. Now onto this thread.

I do not believe that any faith outside Christianity and Judaism come from God. I believe Christ had a physical body after resurrection. I believe we will have physical bodies after resurrection. I don't believe Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí was a prophet. Is that enough?

That's very clear. Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah to be the return of Christ and He brought a New Covenant that has superseded the Christian. Good to clear the air.

You seemed to respond to yourself here. I am confused.

In the above you responded to your self again. I am not sure what to make of it.

Just highlighting my questions you hadn't addressed.

Ok, now your back to me again. I did not say anything about not defending grace based salvation. It is in fact the doctrine I know most about.

Pleased to hear you know a lot about it. Its one of a number of theological contortions that the Evangelical Christians have embraced. I have devoted a thread to exploring it. Feel free to chime in.

Salvation through Christ: Unique to Christianity or applicable to other faiths?

Since we all have the same set of scriptures the evidence is on my side. Unless you spent your whole life traveling and polling Christians about specific doctrines this is meaningless.

We do believe in the same set of scriptures. You have one set of beliefs about those scriptures and align with protestant evangelical Christians. I have another set of beliefs that align with the Baha'i Faith. There is overlap and differences. Minimising the common ground makes it difficult to have a framework for discussing the differences.

What's sovereignty, a covenant, Christ, different faiths, a doctrine? I already gave you scriptures where Christ claimed both exclusivity and sovereignty so what other sovereignty are you asking about? The covenant of Moses was relevant at the time of Christ. Christ came to fulfill it, he did so.

Baha'u'llah came to fulfil the Christian Covenant. The scriptures that appear exclusive should be interpreted given the historic context of Jesus talking to His disciples who were all Jews and believed He was the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy in Hebrew scriptures.

It does not have any special emphasis. Unlike core universal doctrines multiply attested by multiple authors this verse is about a problem in a specific church. For example no church I have ever heard of has this verse the foundation for a creed. Are you claiming Christianity is misogynistic? If so you must also be saying it was rightly misogynistic at one time but has been superseded by some sexual equality doctrine. That's a new one.

The Teachings of Christ and the apostles were not misogynistic. However Christianity has been characterised by subordination of women throughout its history.

The teachings of Baha'u'llah supersede it:

And among the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is the equality of women and men. The world of humanity has two wings—one is women and the other men. Not until both wings are equally developed can the bird fly. Should one wing remain weak, flight is impossible. Not until the world of women becomes equal to the world of men in the acquisition of virtues and perfections, can success and prosperity be attained as they ought to be.

Bahá'í Reference Library - A Compilation on Women, Page 8

Growth in numbers, spreading by geography, total in numbers, etc...... In what objective criteria is it declining?

I've provided you with two examples, one from your country, and the other from mine.

In New Zealand (2013) the proportion of Christians was 48%. In USA (2014) the proportion of Christians was 70%. In both countries there is a decline of 1% per annum. It is reasonable to assume a similar level of decline in Western Europe.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Nope, just that it has such a long history, has such a high population, and has existed in so many cultures you can find any extreme you want.

I acknowledge that Christ was the promised Messiah in the OT, and that He asked His disciples to preach the gospels to all Nations. This was achieved in the nineteenth century marking the fulfilment of prophecy in the Olivet Discourse along with the return of the Jews to their homeland.

Christianity has been an abundantly fruitful tree. However the vitality of man's belief in every land is dying out. This is evident numerically by considering Western countries such as ours.

The movement to violently overthrow slavery as an institution occurred in an almost universally Christian culture. Slavery usually had no defenders because no one was attacking it. Your also leaving out all the history about states rights and the original revolution which the south merely thought it was having to fight again. The civil war is far more complex than you seem to realize.

It is commendable that Christian countries worked to overthrow slavery but non-Christian countries have too. We can not ignore the uncomfortable reality that Christian empires and countries relied on slavery for centuries prior to this.

Abolition of slavery is a fundamental Baha'i teaching:

Baha’u’llah Frees the Slaves

I do not remember being asked for one. You can start here:

John 8:36
36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/freedom-bible-verses/

and keep reading. BTW the bible does not say anything about quantum mechanics, is it therefor in favor of it?

I wouldn't expect the Bible to promote quantum mechanics but how about literacy, knowledge and learning?

The Baha'i faith is strong here again:

Science, Religion, and the Bahá'í Faith | HuffPost

Bahá'í Faith and education - Wikipedia

Slave is an English word. The bible was not written in English.

Young's Literal Translation
Servants -- to their own masters are to be subject, in all things to be well-pleasing, not gainsaying,

Young's Literal Translation
The domestics! be subjecting yourselves in all fear to the masters, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the cross;

As you can see, if you wish to, slavery is not necessarily the correct translation. Servant seems more appropriate. Even if you go back to the old testament servant or bondsman seems to be the more appropriate translation. You got to do your research. If you follow either of the links I gave you will find the original words used and their meanings.

Of course the apostles reinforced the status quo in regards to the subordination of women and slavery. Society then was not ready for the type of equality men and women that must be established today as a prerequisite for world peace. The time was not right to abolish slavery. It was wise of the apostles to teach how to manage with being a slave and recognising that regardless they were free in Christ.

The point is that the NT was written during a very different culture to what we have now and much of what was written is no longer applicable today.

Lets not sanitise the language around slavery and imagine that many were not treated appallingly by their owners and masters.

Actually this was a typing mistake. I meant to say the NT's primary message was spiritual.

New International Version
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

The OT was designed to run a nation, the NT was intended to govern the heart.

It's both really. Consider Isaiah 9:6-7.

Why would I make up such a bizarre statistical comparison? Knock yourself out:

Christian population growth is the population growth of the global Christian community. According to a 2011 Pew Research Center survey, there were 2.19 billion Christians around the world in 2010, more than three times as much from the 600 million recorded in 1910.[1] According to a 2015 Pew Research Center study, by 2050, the Christian population is expected to be 2.9 billion.[2]

Protestantism is one of the most dynamic religious movements in the contemporary world.[3] From 1960 to 2000, the global growth of the number of reported Evangelical Protestants grew three times the world's population rate, and twice that of Islam.[4]
Christian population growth - Wikipedia
The Past Five Years of Christian Growth Worldwide | Lausanne World Pulse Archives
Christians
Growth of the Church

Good to understand the facts and assumption from which you make your claim, so thank you for providing that information.

According to Pew research the proportion of Christians in the world will be unchanged by 2015. That means the growth in numbers of Christians are coming about largely as a result of population growth. There will be a significant decline in proportion of Christians in Western countries that I have clearly demonstrated in my last two post to you. However those losses will be offset by the relatively high population growth in Africa.

The statement you have made in regards to the rapid growth of Evangelical Protestant can not be investigated further because it is based on one reference, a book written by a Christian. If it is true then it will be at the expense of other Christian denominations, otherwise you are contradicting the research done by Pew research.

Having said that Pew research has already underestimated the decline in the number of Christians in both our countries as they contradict their own data provided in another link, and clearly hasn't considered the census done in 2013 in New Zealand.

You clearly want to brush off these facts and you are yet to acknowledge the significant decline in the West. Once you are able to do that then you can review the data I provided that looked at the causes of that decline in your country.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Where is it?

Again, knock your self out.
http://jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com/twelve-new-leaders-twelve-old-tribes-john/
12 Disciples
Jesus and the Twelve
Who were the 12 disciples? | Bibleinfo.com

Thank you. An interesting exercise in theological speculation, but far from conclusive. We could have a very interesting discussion about some of the scriptures referred to, but we will be getting away from the point of our discussion.

I said that the modern scientific revolution occurred in Christian Europe. I said that 78% of Nobel Laureates are Christians. I also gave a list to someone with science's great scholars. Which one are you denying?

You may wish to go back and read what I wrote. The roots of the scientific revolution in Europe were in large part because of the rediscovery of Greek literature, and this came about through Islam's expansion into Europe during the Islamic Golden age.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

Islamic world contributions to Medieval Europe - Wikipedia

As is so often stated. Christianity periodically reviews it's self in the attempt to do away with the bad and keep the good. Islam does not seem to follow the same path. However your talking about Church practices not revelation it's self.

I wonder if you overestimate Christians capacity for self reflection and minimise the same abilities of other Faith adherents.

Accompanying the scientific revolution in Europe was also a question of orthodox theology and we both know the blood shed that resulted in Europe with the birth of the Protestant movement.

I linked Catholicism with coercion not a young earth.

No. You linked Catholicism with being out of touch with science.

YECs and a belief in a physical resurrection are important examples of Christians contradicting science.

Of course there are other factors. However an atheist who wrote a multi-volume work on the causes of the scientific revolution said that their faith was the primary motivation.

We need more than the opinion of one author to answer that question. The problem you have is confounding. You assume an association between Christianity and Science is causal.

You do know the difference between association and causation don't you?

http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2828/1/Rhian_Daniel_What_is_ESRC_RMF.pdf

You keep making claims about science eroding Christianity despite all the evidence. I assumed you simply lacked the evidence. What does the USA have to do with anything?

It demonstrates that Christians in the USA are much less likely that those of other faiths to chose science as a career.

Christianity is 2000 years old, why are you posting data about the last 8 years?

USA is the country with the most Christians in the world. The data highlights a rapid decline in the proportion of those professing to be Christian. We are talking about the crisis of faith in the time we are living in now.

I thought that my belief in the exclusivity was assumed. I believe in Christian exclusivity because I believe in Christ's exclusive claims. He said there is only one narrow road, it didn't originate with me.

I belief you have misunderstood Christ's words and now you have a belief that contributes to religious intolerance and bigotry. Our choices and beliefs affect not only ourselves but has consequences for us all.

Who has distorted Christianity, The Baha'is or the Christians?

The Christians of course.

 

[1robin]

I thought it was important to establish the common ground we have. Your response largely dismissed what I said. I found it astounding.

How on Earth did you post 3 of these in one minute? My response was to pretty much agree with the entire list you posted. How is that dismissal? I don't get it.

If you read it fine. I think the manner in which we communicate is just as important as what we communicate.

You gave a list of doctrines which I read and agreed with. The only impropriety here is your accusing me of not having read it but your the one complaining. What is the deal?

We have spent quite some time exchanging views now you mention it. It started with a discussion about the Historic Jesus and the resurrection. Now onto this thread.

Ok.

That's very clear. Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah to be the return of Christ and He brought a New Covenant that has superseded the Christian. Good to clear the air.

I of course do not agree because there is a whole laundry list in the bible that must occur before and when Christ returns and most of them have not happened.

Just highlighting my questions you hadn't addressed.

I do that by first saying you didn't answer the below then I put my question in quotes to call attention to it.

Pleased to hear you know a lot about it. Its one of a number of theological contortions that the Evangelical Christians have embraced. I have devoted a thread to exploring it. Feel free to chime in.

Salvation through Christ: Unique to Christianity or applicable to other faiths?

Sorry but I do not have the time to respond to all the debates I currently have. One of them is well qualified and prolific so they take up a lot of my free time.

We do believe in the same set of scriptures. You have one set of beliefs about those scriptures and align with protestant evangelical Christians. I have another set of beliefs that align with the Baha'i Faith. There is overlap and differences. Minimising the common ground makes it difficult to have a framework for discussing the differences.

I think I said that by far (it must be at least 100:1) agree with my understanding of core Christian doctrine that your understanding of them. However popularity is irrelevant and we can't know exact numbers anyway. So let's stop appealing to popularity.

I ran out of time, get to the rest soon.

 

[1robin]

Baha'u'llah came to fulfil the Christian Covenant. The scriptures that appear exclusive should be interpreted given the historic context of Jesus talking to His disciples who were all Jews and believed He was the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy in Hebrew scriptures.

There is nothing left incomplete in Christianity. No need or expectations of future messiah's, no need or expectation of future covenants. The NT described a perpetual covenant that started when Christ was resurrected and will not end until a whole list of things occur that haven't. Have you seen 4 horsemen wiping out huge portions of the population, the abomination of desolation, the reconstruction of Solomon's temple, the final war that will be against Israel and involve nuclear release, or Christ coming on the clouds sitting at the right hand of God, etc...... If not then Christ has not returned.

The Teachings of Christ and the apostles were not misogynistic. However Christianity has been characterized by subordination of women throughout its history.

The apostles said:

New International Version
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
New International Version
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

I will defend those scriptures, but I am not responsible for defending the behavior of each of over 4 billion Christians.

BTW even if God was 100% misogynistic, your disagreement with it would be irrelevant. What you do not like is not the criteria for objective moral truth. For example I don't believe in Allah but if he exists I think he is evil, however what I think would have no effect on Allah, if he exists he would be right and I wrong. God is not subject to me, I am subject to him. Of course if you invent a God based on your image then what you prefer might be relevant.
Divine Command Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The teachings of Baha'u'llah supersede it:

And among the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is the equality of women and men. The world of humanity has two wings—one is women and the other men. Not until both wings are equally developed can the bird fly. Should one wing remain weak, flight is impossible. Not until the world of women becomes equal to the world of men in the acquisition of virtues and perfections, can success and prosperity be attained as they ought to be.

Bahá'í Reference Library - A Compilation on Women, Page 8

The bible instructs me to compare any revelation that comes from (the thousands) those claiming to be prophets to the bible to determine their authenticity. The country founded by 95% Christians has also been the most successful and prosperous in human history. I do not see any similar sized Baha'i group that even comes close.

I've provided you with two examples, one from your country, and the other from mine.

In New Zealand (2013) the proportion of Christians was 48%. In USA (2014) the proportion of Christians was 70%. In both countries there is a decline of 1% per annum. It is reasonable to assume a similar level of decline in Western Europe.

Numbers prove nothing, yet they are all on my side. It goes without saying that one place can loose some Christians only to gain plenty more in another place. The net effect is that Christianity grows (from conversion alone) by 2.7 million per year. That makes just our annual growth from conversion alone 50% of your entire Baha'i population. And Christianity is the only religion of any kind to exist in significant numbers in every nation on earth.

 

[1robin]

I acknowledge that Christ was the promised Messiah in the OT, and that He asked His disciples to preach the gospels to all Nations. This was achieved in the nineteenth century marking the fulfilment of prophecy in the Olivet Discourse along with the return of the Jews to their homeland.

There is only one messiah required. Christ died to forgive all sin, and any time, and for anyone. Exactly what need is there far anything else? I have no idea why you referred to the 19th century. The apostles in question began doing exactly what he told them to in the 1st century AD, and others have kept it going for the last 2000 years. There is nothing special about the 19th century.

Christianity has been an abundantly fruitful tree. However the vitality of man's belief in every land is dying out. This is evident numerically by considering Western countries such as ours.

No it isn't, Christianity grows by the entire population of your Baha'i faiths every 2 years.

It is commendable that Christian countries worked to overthrow slavery but non-Christian countries have too. We can not ignore the uncomfortable reality that Christian empires and countries relied on slavery for centuries prior to this.

I have never heard of another significant nation that fought a war to eliminate slavery within it's own borders.

Abolition of slavery is a fundamental Baha'i teaching:

Baha’u’llah Frees the Slaves

I could write a list of hundreds of obvious positive moral values and duties. Does not make me a prophet, doesn't make me divine, and it doesn't even make the list actually true.

I wouldn't expect the Bible to promote quantum mechanics but how about literacy, knowledge and learning?

The Baha'i faith is strong here again:

Science, Religion, and the Bahá'í Faith | HuffPost

Bahá'í Faith and education - Wikipedia

Two points.

1. Christianity has produced more knowledge than any similar demographic. Most of the fields of science themselves were founded by Christians.
2. The bible its self claims:

Proverbs 2:6
6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.

Proverbs 1:7
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Psalm 19:2
2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.

Proverbs 18:15
15 The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge, for the ears of the wise seek it out.

Proverbs 15:14
14 The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.

Proverbs 2:1-2
1 My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, 2 turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding—

Psalm 119:66

66 Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I trust your commands.

Proverbs 1:29
29 since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the LORD.

Isaiah 11:2
2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD—

Proverbs 20:15
15 Gold there is, and rubies in abundance, but lips that speak knowledge are a rare jewel.
11 Top Bible Verses about Knowledge and Wisdom - Inspiring Scripture

Of course the apostles reinforced the status quo in regards to the subordination of women and slavery. Society then was not ready for the type of equality men and women that must be established today as a prerequisite for world peace. The time was not right to abolish slavery. It was wise of the apostles to teach how to manage with being a slave and recognising that regardless they were free in Christ.

I have already stated that the verse about women being quiet in church was in a letter written to a specific church that was having some specific problem. You do know that Galatians, Corinthians, Thessalonians, Philippians, and Romans were letters to address issues within specific churches? The bible does speak of a pre end of times world peace, it prophesies the exact opposite. It says there will be a great war where the victims flesh will to ask before their skeleton collapses to the ground. It will be a war against Israel with the superpowers involved and it will appear that Israel is losing and that is the moment Christ will come back and defend Israel. None of this stuff has occurred yet.

The point is that the NT was written during a very different culture to what we have now and much of what was written is no longer applicable today.

The NT is not culture relative. Cultures are subject to God, God is not subject to culture.

Lets not sanitise the language around slavery and imagine that many were not treated appallingly by their owners and masters. [/quote] I didn't sanitize it I clarified it. I actually debated OT slavery for several weeks in a row. Did you know there is no evidence for any slave that wasn't voluntary. I am sure there were some, but the numbers were apparently so small no evidence remains. It was mainly people who got in too much debt that would voluntarily become a bond servant of a rich man who paid off his debt, and he was free to leave after 6 years. That is where we got the idea for our credit history only going back 7 years. Its referred to as the year of jubilee.

It's both really. Consider Isaiah 9:6-7.

I do not think having two primary messages is logically incoherent.

Good to understand the facts and assumption from which you make your claim, so thank you for providing that information.

According to Pew research the proportion of Christians in the world will be unchanged by 2015. That means the growth in numbers of Christians are coming about largely as a result of population growth. There will be a significant decline in proportion of Christians in Western countries that I have clearly demonstrated in my last two post to you. However those losses will be offset by the relatively high population growth in Africa.

The statement you have made in regards to the rapid growth of Evangelical Protestant can not be investigated further because it is based on one reference, a book written by a Christian. If it is true then it will be at the expense of other Christian denominations, otherwise you are contradicting the research done by Pew research.

Having said that Pew research has already underestimated the decline in the number of Christians in both our countries as they contradict their own data provided in another link, and clearly hasn't considered the census done in 2013 in New Zealand.

You clearly want to brush off these facts and you are yet to acknowledge the significant decline in the West. Once you are able to do that then you can review the data I provided that looked at the causes of that decline in your country.

What happens in New Zealand is not the criteria for what is happening to Christianity as a whole. Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds and there is no data that suggests assumptions about it's decline anytime soon are valid. Numbers do not count, but if they did we would win.

 

[1robin]

Thank you. An interesting exercise in theological speculation, but far from conclusive. We could have a very interesting discussion about some of the scriptures referred to, but we will be getting away from the point of our discussion.

There was enough evidence at those links to convince any reasonable person. In fact I could fill an entire post with links to mainstream scholastic sources claiming the same thing.

You may wish to go back and read what I wrote. The roots of the scientific revolution in Europe were in large part because of the rediscovery of Greek literature, and this came about through Islam's expansion into Europe during the Islamic Golden age.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

Islamic world contributions to Medieval Europe - Wikipedia

You are partially correct.

1. Christianity at one time forbid the use of knowledge from sources they perceived as pagan.
2. Islam did retain knowledge from previous cultures and did have a golden age (mainly in medicinal science). However this was not the modern scientific revolution.
3. Christians began using Greek and Roman knowledge regardless of church policy to leapfrog beyond every one else and didn't look back until the very recent surge in atheistic science. But the modern atheist stands on the shoulders of the Christian scientific giants who advanced abstract science, which was the modern scientific revolution.

Look up any list of sciences greatest historical thinkers. You will find them dominated by Christians and Jews.

I wonder if you overestimate Christians capacity for self reflection and minimise the same abilities of other Faith adherents.

I take each person on their own merits, in this context.

Accompanying the scientific revolution in Europe was also a question of orthodox theology and we both know the blood shed that resulted in Europe with the birth of the Protestant movement.

I do not deny Christianity's tragedies but I place the blame where it belongs, on the men who defy the bible, not the bible its self. There is not one verse justifying violence for any reason in the NT. If we kill each other without just cause, it is not the fault of the book which prohibits murder, or it's author.

No. You linked Catholicism with being out of touch with science.

Yes there was a period of time a long time ago when the Catholic church restricted learning from certain sources. What does that prove?

YECs and a belief in a physical resurrection are important examples of Christians contradicting science.

I do not have to defend anything some portion of Christians did. I am not a YEC and so I don't have a dog in the race.

We need more than the opinion of one author to answer that question. The problem you have is confounding. You assume an association between Christianity and Science is causal.

I gave you four links above, for another claim in a previous post I gave 2, and for another in the same post I gave you 6. Yet you denied all 3 claims. Is there any amount of sources which could change you mind?

You do know the difference between association and causation don't you?

http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2828/1/Rhian_Daniel_What_is_ESRC_RMF.pdf

I had 3 college level classes in probability and statistics, enough to know one of your terms is not a mainstream term in the way you used it. It is usually stated as causation versus correlation. I have already explained the cause. Christians believed in a rational God, they presumed he would have created a rational universe. They set out to decode the rationality (lawfulness) of the universe and modern science was born.
The Role of Religion in the Scientific Revolution - The Objective Standard

I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can obtain by them.
---Galileo, Letter to Grand Duchess Christina (1615)

For example, Roger Bacon argued that if you wanted to interpret scriptural passages that touch on the heavens or other objects of scientific investigation, you had to have scientific knowledge. And quite a large amount of scientific content is found in medieval theological treatises.
The Christian Face of the Scientific Revolution: Christian History Interview - Natural Adversaries?

It demonstrates that Christians in the USA are much less likely that those of other faiths to chose science as a career.

What is that supposed to prove?

USA is the country with the most Christians in the world. The data highlights a rapid decline in the proportion of those professing to be Christian. We are talking about the crisis of faith in the time we are living in now.

No, we are like 10th. Christianity is growing, it isn't being eroded by anything.

I belief you have misunderstood Christ's words and now you have a belief that contributes to religious intolerance and bigotry. Our choices and beliefs affect not only ourselves but has consequences for us all.

He said there was one road, one gate, and one name by which all men can come to know God. The verses that contain these claims to exclusivity do not even require interpreting.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe there may be a big discrepancy between the way adherents portray their religion, the way it really is and the way outsiders view it.

 

[George-ananda]

I believe there may be a big discrepancy between the way adherents portray their religion, the way it really is and the way outsiders view it.

I think the key point is the modern western adherents are being perfectly honest but were presented with the more comfortable western version and themselves don't know what they don't know. The odder aspects, like a future Baha'i world era in an overwhelmingly Baha'i world have been completely removed from the spotlight and the western adherents themselves have never really understood it.

But I think it is basically a good religion.

 

[Muffled]

But Baha'i's have never adder their own invented doctrines to the original teachings, right?

I believe it is all invented. There is no reason to believe anything written was inspired by God.

 

[Sundance]

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.

Here are some facts concerning the matter of Krishna in The Bahá’í Faith (and on the Souls we term ‘Manifestations of God’ in general), dear Kapalika:

#1, While Krishna is counted among the Divine Lights in our faith, nowhere in The Holy Writings of ANY of The Central Figures is He called ‘The Founder of Hinduism’, nor do they present Hinduism as this monolithic religion with one particular individual birthing it. As @adrian009 noted, the opposite is what actually occurs. It is acknowledged that Hinduism is a collection of vastly different religious traditions with their own beliefs and practices, and multiple originators. Krishna is seen as one of them and a major one, no doubt.

#2, The whole ‘Founder of Hinduism’ criticism is sort of accurate, but not exact. It originates from a common perception of some Bahá’ís themselves concerning the Identities of some of the more commonly-listed Manifestations of God. Most of the Individuals listed commonly are, indeed, the originators of their respective traditions. It is correct to point out the mistake in identifying Krishna thusly, however.

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.

Again, I must agree with adrian: just because a specific religion or holy teacher is not explicitly mentioned does not constitute any denial of the Light from within it or them. In Gleanings, Bahá’u’lláh had said,

“There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose.”

So, Bahá’u’lláh makes it unambiguously clear that (whether He knew of it or not) all religions flow from the same Divine Source for the same basic purpose: to educate humankind.

As for other deities, Bahá’ís conceive of them as that they are the products of the ways of peoples of various cultures to relate to the same Supreme Being.

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?

See the quote from Gleanings as well as my following comment thereon above concerning the differences between religions.

As for the second paragraph, my understanding is that it is not that the original Teachings become changed or revised, rather one of two things tends to happen:

#1, The Followers become so attracted to the “apparent reality” (i.e. what something says at face-value) of any given teaching that they become unwilling to accept any other way of understanding it.

OR

#2, The Followers of the Teachings build so much on top of the original Teachings that they become buried underneath, sometimes causing the Followers to lose sight of the Purpose of those Teachings (and even of the Teachings Themselves).

As for your inquiry concerning (again) differences between religions, I understand that those are the products of the different cultures and time periods in which they sprang forth into being.

As for your inquiry concerning God, there are two considerations worthy of note:

#1, The Bahá’í Faith itself had originated from within the milieu of religions such as Shi’a Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism, which are all monotheistic, so it, too, is a reflection of its own culture.

#2, One thing that Bahá’ís believe about God is that His Essence (who or what He is) can never be fully apprehended by human beings. All we'll ever have are our own conceptions built around Him which cannot hope to exhaust the Knowledge of Himself. So, what you're dealing with is, basically, varying conceptions of the same Ultimate Reality. As far as I'm concerned, I don't try to paint all religions as monotheistic. I am fully aware and very appreciative of the existence of different conceptions of the Ultimate Reality among the various religions of the world.

 

[Alise Wilson]

For every person who wants to know more about the Baha'i faith, visit this website MyStar95. It's an online radio devoted to the Baha'i religion. The faith talks mixed with good positive music.

 

[CG Didymus]

Abdulbaha Answers:


"From the days of Adam until today, the religions of God have been made manifest, one following the other, and each one of them fulfilled its due function, revived mankind, and provided education and enlightenment. They freed the people from the darkness of the world of nature and ushered them into the brightness of the Kingdom. As each succeeding Faith and Law became revealed it remained for some centuries a richly fruitful tree and to it was committed the happiness of humankind. However, as the centuries rolled by, it aged, it flourished no more and put forth no fruit, wherefore was it then made young again.
The religion of God is one religion, but it must ever be renewed. Moses, for example, was sent forth to man and He established a Law, and the Children of Israel, through that Mosaic Law, were delivered out of their ignorance and came into the light; they were lifted up from their abjectness and attained to a glory that fadeth not. Still, as the long years wore on, that radiance passed by, that splendour set, that bright day turned to night; and once that night grew triply dark, the star of the Messiah dawned, so that again a glory lit the world.
Our meaning is this: the religion of God is one, and it is the educator of humankind, but still, it needs must be made new. When thou dost plant a tree, its height increaseth day by day. It putteth forth blossoms and leaves and luscious fruits. But after a long time, it doth grow old, yielding no fruitage any more. Then doth the Husbandman of Truth take up the seed from that same tree, and plant it in a pure soil; and lo, there standeth the first tree, even as it was before."

You can read farther:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 51-53

Which religion of God did Moses' teachings replace?