-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah
- Thread starter DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, it only shows that I know the difference between a belief and a fact because I hang around a lot with atheists who are actually logical.
I would say it is easy to hurl untruths, you are yet to post anything good historical account about the person you say had no fault in the matter.
Any search of history, that is not from an enemy of the Faith will tell the story, as many many people that were eye witnesses have recorded their accounts.
Unless of course you say the many eye witnesses also decided to lie.
I wish all well, regards Tony
SeekerOnThePath
On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
SeekerOnThePath
On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
And covenant breakers Tony? none of em evil apostates? amirite?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I said that there is no proof that any religion came from God because there is no proof that God even exists.
That does not mean that I am not absolutely certain that God exists, I am certain. I am also absolutely certain that the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel, just as certain as I am that the God spoke to the Bab and Baha'u'llah and Moses and Jesus through the Holy Spirit.
But these are still beliefs, not facts, because they can never be proven to be true.
SeekerOnThePath
On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
And, though you should already know this, your founders say the same about the Qur'an.
As Shoghi Effendi says in "The Advent of Divine Justice":
Those who participate in such a campaign, whether in an organizing capacity, or as workers to whose care the execution of the task itself has been committed, must, as an essential preliminary to the discharge of their duties, thoroughly familiarize themselves with the various aspects of the history and teachings of their Faith. In their efforts to achieve this purpose they must study for themselves, conscientiously and painstakingly, the literature of their Faith, delve into its teachings, assimilate its laws and principles, ponder its admonitions, tenets and purposes, commit to memory certain of its exhortations and prayers, master the essentials of its administration, and keep abreast of its current affairs and latest developments. They must strive to obtain, from sources that are authoritative and unbiased, a sound knowledge of the history and tenets of Islám—the source and background of their Faith—and approach reverently and with a mind purged from preconceived ideas the study of the Qur’án which, apart from the sacred scriptures of the Bábí and Bahá’í Revelations, constitutes the only Book which can be regarded as an absolutely authenticated Repository of the Word of God. They must devote special attention to the investigation of those institutions and circumstances that are directly connected with the origin and birth of their Faith, with the station claimed by its Forerunner, and with the laws revealed by its Author.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
What's wrong with atheists? I like atheists. I do nt consider myself better than they are just because they do not believe in God.
SeekerOnThePath
On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
You reply about Atheists to my reply about you calling it "a book that sits on a shelf", which is factually incorrect. You can make a book of it and put it on a shelf, but it isn't innately a book in itself. It is a recitation, as it is titled.
Basically like if a public speech is made, someone could transcribe the speech and print a book of it, but it's not suddenly a book, it's still a public speech.
(That's not a direct or literal comparison, but it works for these purposes.)
I see you can choose whatever sources you wish.
I just hope we all choose with justice in mind.
Regards Tony
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Of course i know that and I believe that, and I have other sources that say that:
From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:
...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)
...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)
When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)
We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)
We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)
Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)
The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
My only point was that it is a book on a shelf until you read it and interpret it and assign meaning to it.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I never claimed to have knowledge of the Qur'an. I only know enough to be dangerous
so that is why I do not talk about it much. I know it was revealed by the Angel Gabriel and it is the Word of God, but other than that I only know a few verses. That might seem odd to you, given I am a Baha'i and have been a Bahai for 50 years, but if you read my story you would know why this is the case. Given my lack of knowledge, i am always happy to learn from people who know more than me, and I believe that the people who know most about a religion are the members of that religion, not those who oppose it.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
When you know this and acknowledge this, then why are you a theist or a Bahai?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Because I have evidence.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, other people could also believe that evidence, and then they would become Baha'is... which only the Bahais can believe.
I started to reply to this, this morning and lost the lot
It is always healthy to question what you believe. How we do this is a part of our journey.
I see a Baha'i practices the Law given by Baha'u'llah, which makes them a practicing Baha'i and not a Muslim who practices the Law given by Muhammad.
I can only say that God does as God wills and gives the Message God chooses, through the Messenger chosen by God. It is up to each of us to consider who are the Messengers and if we are wasting out time or not!
Such is the Quandary of Faith given by God. The Quran gives the same challenges as the Baha'i Writings do. It challenge us to see One God in many Names.
I do not see it as a game to be one, but as a way of life to embrace. I see the world is learning what lifestyle it needs to embrace to find our harmony under One God.
I see the Word given by God is the standard. The Bible offers this parable;
Matthew 13:24-30 The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares
'24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”
Regards Tony
Thank you so much for writing all that! I appreciate it a lot!
So, what book should I start with that will give me the whole Bahai religion and practice and sayings in one easy (even if its big) book? Is there anything like that you recommend? The Qur'an is currently the book I use as a framework for everything else. I don't consider the Qur'an the law or sayings of Muhammed, because the book is written in the unusual style of someone or something talking to Muhammed, rather than Muhammed talking. It wasn't just that creative writing experiment that makes the Qur'an any good, but it is what the Qur'an ends up saying and how easy it is to use what it says to provide a sense of a concise, formal religion, that satisfied the natural urge in some people to have a relationship with God, particularly a God that seems to make more sense than some others that are more complex, complicated, not as all-powerful seeming, or other issues with the descriptions.
What attracts people to the Bahai religion in the West, and why its this certain demographic or age group and similar types of people who have been members or have joined and practiced now is of great interest to me. The term "flash in the pan" comes to mind, and that is what the incidents related to the Bab and Baha'u'llah almost seem like to me currently in their historical scope. If something is miraculous, it is that these events which took place in some little corner of the world in the 1800s have reached a few people in the West and have made them filled with love and admiration for a man they never knew personally (I hope, since I'll have to stop typing anything provocative at all if people on this website are THAT old). There are similarly, people who fall in love with Muhammed. I am not one of them. I don't think about Muhammed, and I don't believe in Muhammed much in any way, but why his name comes up at all is in connection with the Qur'an, a book which I really like a lot and find very useful in numerous ways, as well as to control people and their behaviors as well. So there is a pragmatic and efficient aspect as well, and numerous points of value. Muhammed may have been a talking carrot for all I know or care, he is irrelevant to me mainly, and whoever is enamored with dead men they never knew, I wonder what that is all really about (like people who think they have the documentary footage of Jesus playing in their minds).
Baha'u'llah was at least somewhat closer to our times, as was Joseph Smith, but this seems to only make the large collections of their tales and activities all the less legendary seeming. Joseph Smith seemed like a flash in the pan too, but a greater flash than Baha'u'llah, due to the powerful (or soon to be very much more powerful) nation he was part of and a threat to. The religion he created seems even more organized currently, wealthier, more successful, with many more followers and devotees, and armies of proselytizing children sent out like spores across the face of the Earth to tell people that they should worship a God who is a man just like them (not Jesus), born of men just like them, and that they can be Gods too someday. You and I both think they are dead wrong, right? Do you and I also believe that their beliefs are hideous blasphemy, and that their beliefs are taking themselves to hell most likely as well as all the people they convince of these statements (do Bahai still believe in wrong beliefs taking people to hell the way that Muslims might?).
I'd have nothing to do or say about Islam at all if it were not for their primary product, the Qur'an, and their history (far from a flash in the pan, it burned the whole darn kitchen and the block, and is currently working on the city) seems to be much more notable and impactful upon the world for a very long time, including currently. It just seems far from "dead" and far from "old" really, but active, constantly refreshing into newer and scarier forms, like a virus. One way people have been infected by Islam is by opening up the Qur'an ( www.islamawakened.com ) and reading its words, getting into a conversation, or even an argument with its engaging style of writing (in English translation). It seems almost alive, and after a little while, one might realize that they have been speaking to a book, and somehow even felt they were spoken back to. They are likely exposed to the virus, and it may be that the infection has entered them, and now it is up to their immune defenses to fight it off, if it can. In my case, I didn't stand much of a chance, and had this disease put into me from an early age, and have not found the cure or anything to immunize me from its (here is that word again) insidious work on my thinking and even physiology. It turned me into a Saracen, like a member of a horde, the Borg and their Cube, or a Zombie for Islam. Now, wherever I turn my face "There is Allah". Even if I shut my eyes, they remain unceasingly aware of this presence. I envy the Atheists sometimes for their Godlessness, as they do not have this mental malfunction that makes one think that God is real and responsible for everything.
In the 1800s, there was an series of events out in the far away places that America still has difficulty recognizing as truly significant overall. Is there a primary product that can download in me an anti-virus or maybe some sort of modification to the Islam bug? It almost sounds like what the Bahai are saying is that after Islam, there was an update released in the 1800s, but for whatever reason, people mostly still keep going back to older versions of Windows.
I've also heard that, and maybe you could correct me on this (since I really don't know), but I've heard that the Qur'an (excluding the Hadith literature or medieval Islamic Historic Developments and Laws) is even more easy going and gentle than (some of the) laws suggested by or presented by Baha'u'llah, which are in comparison (as an update) surprisingly more extreme, more harsh, than possibly even most modern laws and punishments, and so that if these laws are to be followed (for the next 1000 years, until the next flash in the pan that will leave most people guessing if it meant anything at all or is worth looking into), we would be living in a very conservative and un-modern fashion for a long time.
How flexible is the Bahai legal system and how necessary is it for it to be the one adopted by the World? If one were to side by side examine the edicts of Baha'u'llah compared to the commands and suggestions of the Qur'an, would one be demonstrably and apparently more harsh and extreme and sharp than the other? Would one seem more modern and appropriate or flexible within modernity than the other?
Can someone make such a comparison or make the case? Is that information available and visible or are the supposed laws of God as told by God (or God's manifestation(s)) to be hidden from sight? Shouldn't they be widely known and broadcast or is God our dirty little secret?
I think the Bahai writings, works, literature, all of it, needs to be spammed across the world and to all ears if it is truly God's commandments that we are dealing with here. How unfair is it that these important statements are never even heard of by most of humanity?
I wish I could remember everything he said but unfortunately the Baha'i forum where I knew him from closed recently so I cannot go back and ask him now. As I recall though, he never lost faith that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God, he just preferred some aspects of Islam to the Baha'i Faith, but then he realized he was really a Baha'i and he could have both religions!
I agree, I think people can totally probably have both religions at once without losing anything. I think that a person can practice Islam, and take on the extra bit of Bahai stuff if they want to, or even take Baha'u'llah as a reformer or messenger without being a "Book Prophet" like Muhammed, but does Baha'u'llah also have a kind of Book which is supposed to be just God's words directly talking? Even if he does, people can take that as well so long as it doesn't contradict the Qur'an (does it/he? Where? How?).
What is Manifestation of God? Does it mean Avatara of God? Does it mean Incarnation of God? Does it mean God on Earth? Does it mean God as a man? Does it mean God in a particular man?
The term Manifestation of God, is it very important and necessary? It has gotten people killed. It has gotten people beaten up and killed because it almost sounds like (in English anyway) someone is claiming to be God, the living God, God in person, God made Manifest, Here I am, Hi I am God your Lord made Manifest. Is that what it means? Can this term be eliminated for all the trouble it is seemingly causing?
If I said, Joan of Arc is the Manifestation of God, wouldn't that mean that I am saying that Joan of Arc is basically like a video game character that God is playing as, and so if Joan of Arc turns to me and winks, that is God turning to me and winking through this Manifestation of God? I'm pretty sure that is what that mean, and even if it doesn't, what it would mean or seem to mean to most people hearing it.
Its like how Mormons dance around the word "Godhead" which they mean in a totally different way than other people.
One of the definitions of Manifestation is "a version or incarnation of something or someone."
"Meaning "an object, action, or presence by which something is made manifest" is from 1785. The spiritualism sense of "phenomena by which the presence of a spirit or ghost is supposed to be rendered perceptible" is attested by 1853."
So around the time this was all going on, this word Manifestation was coming up a lot in English, and it was seeming to mean something like "a clear appearance; manifestation ( n.) a manifest indication of the existence or presence or nature of some person or thing; a manifestation of disease. manifestation ( n.) an appearance in bodily form (as of a disembodied spirit); Synonyms: materialization / materialisation. manifestation ( n.)"
I think what was maybe being said, or understood by some people at least, is that, maybe like Jesus was supposed to be, Baha'u'llah was God on Earth, God and God's words were everything Baha'u'llah was saying and doing because he was God made "clear in appearance, embodying God" the way that Jesus is called God, the living God, God on Earth, God made manifest in Christ our Lord, and all that stuff.
Jesus was a accused of saying or suggesting such and was supposedly killed for it, and the same seems to have happened to the Bab and Baha'u'llah, that they were accused of saying they were God or God on Earth embodying God and speaking for God as God, and they were killed for it.
The difference with the Muhammed of the Qur'an is that he does not say that he is God, knows God, is embodying God, is God's manifestation, is God's law incarnate, but instead the Qur'an says that he is an expendable nobody being used by God to deliver to this community a message and a movement, that if he is killed he can just as easily be replaced and the message can continue until it is complete, because the message is not from them, they are unimportant, they don't even know what the message is, the message is from a source that isn't them, it is for lack of a better word, Alien. An Alien Transmission from a God who doesn't need them. Muhammed is not important in the Qur'an, and neither is Jesus. God brags as only God rightfully can, that Muhammed, Mary, Jesus, and all the rest, can be utterly annihilated, and even were at times (like Moses expiring when God revealed God's true nature of Annihilation as Subhan the Void) and brought back just as easily, that people are God's toys, they are nothing, a joke. That is the God I know and believe in and have had experiences with and which matches up to this horrible world we live in as well. What has Baha'u'llah shown at all in his writing that seems to be spoken from his own mouth as himself (which is fine, if he is God manifest and so all his words are God speaking actually, rather than in the style of the Qur'an where Muhammed is being spoken to instead of speaking), that seems to be or represent this same God?
Why would God change styles as to become suddenly unrecognizable, and even end up deciding on a manifestation or incarnation after making such a huge fuss in the Qur'an about never being able to manifest or be contained or embodied or incarnate or whatever and that the things they say of Jesus and others, that he is God on Earth, are a huge lie and abomination, so hideous a statement that it would destroy the Universe if it were true? Why? What is the Big Deal? Well, apparently God is upholding and generating every single nuance of experience and reality, so that if God is wholly encompassed by a form or figure, then everything in existence would be non-functioning, since God is "manifesting" all the things, not just Jesus weeping, but the leaves falling too. What then, is Not, "God's Manifestation" if God is controlling and creating every detail of what occurs everywhere always?
I think that if one doesn't believe in the Islamic system or framework as presented by the Qur'an, there is no religion really, and that they should abandon everything and live life free from unnecessary laws and constraints added on top of whatever legal system they live under in their country of residence. Why do we have to waste our time and our lives defending these dead people and the things they said and supposedly did? Maybe they were lunatics, or psychopaths even, we can never know. Yet people dedicate their whole lives to some narcissistic personalities from here or there in the world (I don't mean Baha'u'llah, I'm thinking of other people who you've probably seen on documentaries and on the television who adore this or that God-Man, and we all think they are mad fools surely, both their Man-God and whoever follows them, don't you feel the same way?).
What I like about the Qur'an, is the God of the Qur'an. If the God of the Qur'an was described in some way that made God worked out and calculated as less powerful than the God in the actual Qur'an, or not matching up to what I consider necessarily Ultimate, then I'd say that the book is trash, because of the God it teaches and promotes conceptually adds up to being not matched up to reality, not true, not worthy of worship, a weakling, a coward, dependent.
Is the description of God in the Qur'an totally matched up to the added up description of Baha'u'llah's God and does the God of the Qur'an make the term and concept implied by "Manifestation of God" acceptable or intelligible even? Don't Christians say that the Author of Confusion is the Devil?