Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

[firedragon]

I already covered this by pointing out your comment on how much you dislike my posts.

I hate that feeling that I'm talking to a rock.

Haha. I can only remember one single post of yours that I responded to and then you went on with barrage of hatred to your posts.

I dont know you mate. So I really dont know what you are talking about. Posts? I cant recall ever reading any of your other posts.

).

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Nevertheless, since you mentioned Alexander several times I would like to say that the idea that Dhul Karnain is Alexander is pure assumption. Words have meanings, and there is no evidence that Dhul Karnain is Alexander. Dhul Karnain means two seasons. Man of two seasons.

Yeah I fully reject that as well. Arguments made to support Alexander are quite weak when both accounts are compared to each other. The points that supporters of such arguments try to make are quite superficial, usually relying on shock value to support their claim. Every little aspect that they try to stretch out is the polar opposite of what the Qur'an says about Dhul Qarnayn.
Plus Qarn doesn't explicitly mean "horn" and other appearances of the word Qarn in the Qur'an are usually translated to "Age/Epoch".

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The Bab is pretty damn explicit here that He Whom God Shall Make Manifest is not coming in 25 years, let alone even 1,000 years, but rather two whole millennia. He writes about this in other writings too.

@The Artis Magistra (You may find this interesting too, RE: Baha'u'llah is not who he claimed to be, according to The Bab)

Also from Persian Bayan, Vahid 2 Gate 16:

@The Artis Magistra

Also another:

Persian Bayan, Vahid 3 Gate 15:

"It is the same if all the believers in the Bayan believe in Him Whom God shall make manifest; not a single one among them will remain in the fire, and the order of non-believer will not be thrust upon any one among them. Await the manifestation so that that space of a breath will not pass between the moment of the manifestation and that in which all those who believe in the Bayan will give their faith, for it is not worthy that He be awaited during Mustaghas (that is to say 2001 years). If they take step of the robe of circumspection, this circumspection was and is in the fire. Even if our hope in God, very good and very benevolent may be this that at the moment of His
manifestation, by His elevated orders in His writings He awakens all His slaves from their sleep and does not permit that, following the formal order of His Bayan which is “from Qias to Mustaghas” they will remain in the fire; for, finally, nobody other than God knows the date of the
manifestation. When it takes place, all must affirm the Point of Truth and thank God, even though
we hope in God that one will not have to wait until Mustaghas and that before this date the word of God will arise."

This 2nd tablet from the Bab is addressed to "Him who will be made manifest"

A SECOND TABLET ADDRESSED TO ‘HIM WHO WILL BE MADE MANIFEST’


"May the glances of Him Whom God shall make manifest illumine this letter at the primary school. 1

He is the Most Glorious.

HE is God, no God is there but Him, the Almighty, the Best Beloved. All that are in the heavens and on the earth and whatever lieth between them are His. Verily He is the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.

This is a letter from God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting, unto God, the Almighty, the Best Beloved, to affirm that the Bayán and such as bear allegiance to it are but a present from me unto Thee and to express my undoubting faith that there is no God but Thee, that the kingdoms of Creation and Revelation are Thine, that no one can attain anything save by Thy power and that He Whom Thou hast raised up is but Thy servant and Thy Testimony. I, indeed, beg to address Him Whom God shall make manifest, by Thy leave in these words: ‘Shouldst Thou dismiss the entire company of the followers of the Bayán in the Day of the Latter Resurrection by a mere sign of Thy finger even while still a suckling babe, Thou wouldst indeed be praised in Thy indication. And though no doubt is there about it, do Thou grant a respite of nineteen years as a token of Thy favour so that those who have embraced this Cause may be graciously rewarded by Thee. Thou art verily the Lord of grace abounding. Thou dost indeed suffice every created thing and causest it to be independent of all things, while nothing in the heavens or on the earth or that which lieth between them can ever suffice Thee.’
Verily Thou art the Self-Sufficient, the All-Knowing; Thou art indeed potent over all things.

Reference 1 noted above

Spoiler

1. In one of His Tablets ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explains that some were misled by this statement and thought that the school referred to was a physical school for the training of unlettered children, whereas it referred to a spiritual school sanctified from the limits of the contingent world. Bahá’u’lláh in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas also refers to this Epistle of the Báb in the following words:

O Thou Supreme Pen! Move over the Tablet by the leave of Thy Lord, the Creator of the heavens. Call Thou then to mind the day when the Fountainhead of divine unity sought to attend the school which is sanctified of all save God, that perchance the righteous might become acquainted, to the extent of a needle’s eye, with that which is concealed behind the veil of the inner mysteries of Thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Knowing.

Say, We, in truth, entered the school of inner meaning and exposition at a time when the minds of all that dwell on earth were wrapt in heedlessness. We beheld what the Merciful Lord had revealed, accepted the gift He [the Báb] had offered Me of the verses of God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting, and hearkened to that to which He had attested in the Tablet. We, verily, are the Witness. We responded to His call at Our Own behest, and We are, in truth, the Ordainer.

O people of the Bayán! We entered the School of God when ye were slumbering on your couches, and perused the Tablet when ye were fast asleep. By the righteousness of God, the True One, We had read it before it was revealed, and ye were utterly unaware. Indeed Our knowledge had encompassed the Book when ye were yet unborn.

These utterances are revealed according to your measure, not to God’s, and unto this beareth witness that which is enshrined in the knowledge of God, did ye but know. Unto this testifieth He Who is the Mouthpiece of God, could ye but understand. By the righteousness of God! Were We to lift the veil ye would swoon away. Take heed lest ye dispute with Him and His Cause. He hath indeed appeared in such wise as to encompass all things, whether of the past or of the future. Were We to speak forth at this time in the language of the dwellers of the Kingdom, We would say that God raised up this School ere the earth and the heavens were brought into being, and We entered it before the letters ‘B’ and ‘E’ were joined and knit together.

So Baha'u'llah declared in the year 19 (1863) for Love of the Bab and God had granted the reward to those that followed the Bab by allowing the majority to embrace the Glory of God, Baha'u'llah.

Also the Bab made it clear to His followers that they would see the One who God would make manifest;

'...The announcement of 'Him Whom God shall make manifest', which the Báb gave to His followers, was firm and irrevocable, more clear and emphatic than that given by any Manifestation of God before Him. In past Dispensations the signs of the coming of the next Manifestation were always wrapped in mystery and expressed in allegorical terms. But the Báb gave no such signs. Rather, He indicated that the glory of 'Him Whom God shall make manifest' would be so strikingly apparent that there would be no need of signs. Yet none could recognize Him through his own knowledge, He warned, nor judge Him by his own standards, nor adduce proofs to establish His authenticity, for He would be exalted above the recognition of His servants and known only through Himself and His Revelation. The sole testimony to His truth would be that which He Himself would reveal, and not that which men might produce. In one of His Writings extolling Bahá'u'lláh, the Báb affirmed that 'Certitude itself is ashamed to be called upon to certify His truth...and Testimony itself is ashamed to testify unto Him'...."

The Bab's whole Revelation was to prepare us for Baha'u'llah. This link

Spoiler

The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 1, Chapter 18

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Plus Qarn doesn't explicitly mean "horn" and other appearances of the word Qarn in the Qur'an are usually translated to "Age/Epoch".

Absolutely. I think I said the same thing at least twice in this same thread. Qarana means an age, season, generation, or era. It meaning horn is a much later inference based on the Alexander inference. And now the horn has taken another turn to assert others are Dhul Qarnain. So first, the horn idea comes from Alexander, not from the Quran and its Fusha Atthurath, so it is an imposition upon the Quran, then that imposition becomes the standard for another interpretation of another person wearing horn clad helmets who is supposed to be Dhul Qarnain.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

This is a letter from God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting, unto God, the Almighty, the Best Beloved, to affirm that the Bayán and such as bear allegiance to it are but a present from me unto Thee and to express my undoubting faith that there is no God but Thee, that the kingdoms of Creation and Revelation are Thine, that no one can attain anything save by Thy power and that He Whom Thou hast raised up is but Thy servant and Thy Testimony. I, indeed, beg to address Him Whom God shall make manifest, by Thy leave in these words: ‘Shouldst Thou dismiss the entire company of the followers of the Bayán in the Day of the Latter Resurrection by a mere sign of Thy finger even while still a suckling babe, Thou wouldst indeed be praised in Thy indication. And though no doubt is there about it, do Thou grant a respite of nineteen years as a token of Thy favour so that those who have embraced this Cause may be graciously rewarded by Thee. Thou art verily the Lord of grace abounding. Thou dost indeed suffice every created thing and causest it to be independent of all things, while nothing in the heavens or on the earth or that which lieth between them can ever suffice Thee.’
Verily Thou art the Self-Sufficient, the All-Knowing; Thou art indeed potent over all things.

Baha'u'llah was around 30 years old when that tablet was written.

So much for a suckling babe/child, it's very strongly obvious that it's not about nor addressed to Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah was basically a contemporary of The Bab, younger by a few years.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Absolutely. I think I said the same thing at least twice in this same thread. Qarana means an age, season, generation, or era. It meaning horn is a much later inference based on the Alexander inference. And now the horn has taken another turn to assert others are Dhul Qarnain. So first, the horn idea comes from Alexander, not from the Quran and its Fusha Atthurath, so it is an imposition upon the Quran, then that imposition becomes the standard for another interpretation of another person wearing horn clad helmets who is supposed to be Dhul Qarnain.

You have a good point brother,
God bless

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Baha'u'llah was around 30 years old when that tablet was written.

So much for a suckling babe/child, it's very strongly obvious that it's not about nor addressed to Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah was basically a contemporary of The Bab, younger by a few years.

I do not limit what the Bab was offering, but to say God in all knowing and I am but formed of the dust, to which we all return.

Baha'u'llah offered;

"... These utterances are revealed according to your measure, not to God’s, and unto this beareth witness that which is enshrined in the knowledge of God, did ye but know. Unto this testifieth He Who is the Mouthpiece of God, could ye but understand. By the righteousness of God! Were We to lift the veil ye would swoon away. Take heed lest ye dispute with Him and His Cause. He hath indeed appeared in such wise as to encompass all things, whether of the past or of the future. Were We to speak forth at this time in the language of the dwellers of the Kingdom, We would say that God raised up this School ere the earth and the heavens were brought into being, and We entered it before the letters ‘B’ and ‘E’ were joined and knit together... "

Regards Tony

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

I do not limit what the Bab was offering, but to say God in all knowing and I am but formed of the dust, to which we all return.

Baha'u'llah offered;

"... These utterances are revealed according to your measure, not to God’s, and unto this beareth witness that which is enshrined in the knowledge of God, did ye but know. Unto this testifieth He Who is the Mouthpiece of God, could ye but understand. By the righteousness of God! Were We to lift the veil ye would swoon away. Take heed lest ye dispute with Him and His Cause. He hath indeed appeared in such wise as to encompass all things, whether of the past or of the future. Were We to speak forth at this time in the language of the dwellers of the Kingdom, We would say that God raised up this School ere the earth and the heavens were brought into being, and We entered it before the letters ‘B’ and ‘E’ were joined and knit together... "

Regards Tony

That is called circular reasoning. You're saying that Baha'u'llah was correct because Baha'u'llah said that he was correct.
I've shown several times here, that The Bab shows that Baha'u'llah was incorrect.

I, indeed, beg to address Him Whom God shall make manifest, by Thy leave in these words: ‘Shouldst Thou dismiss the entire company of the followers of the Bayán in the Day of the Latter Resurrection by a mere sign of Thy finger even while still a suckling babe, Thou wouldst indeed be praised in Thy indication. And though no doubt is there about it, do Thou grant a respite of nineteen years as a token of Thy favour so that those who have embraced this Cause may be graciously rewarded by Thee.

So Baha'u'llah declared in the year 19 (1863) for Love of the Bab and God had granted the reward to those that followed the Bab by allowing the majority to embrace the Glory of God, Baha'u'llah.

The two quotes above show how intellectually dishonest you Baha'i's are.

How in the hell does "do thou grant a respite of nineteen years as a token", become "Bahaullah declared in the year nineteen". Both are completely different things.

One is a warning given nineteen years years in advance, the other one is a literal year being the nineteenth year after a particular thing.
There is no connection between the two. This twisting of the text is almost as erroneous of how Christians try to distort the text of the Tanakh. Do you have no shame?

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'u'llah was around 30 years old when that tablet was written.

So much for a suckling babe/child, it's very strongly obvious that it's not about nor addressed to Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah was basically a contemporary of The Bab, younger by a few years.

"even while still a suckling babe" has nothing to do with the age of those whom the Bab was addressing, He was not referring to an actual baby, He was using symbolic language to refer to something else.

Meanwhile, you missed the most important point of the passage: "And though no doubt is there about it, do Thou grant a respite of nineteen years as a token of Thy favour so that those who have embraced this Cause may be graciously rewarded by Thee. Thou art verily the Lord of grace abounding."

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That is called circular reasoning. You're saying that Baha'u'llah was correct because Baha'u'llah said that he was correct.
I've shown several times here, that The Bab shows that Baha'u'llah was incorrect.

No, I say that Baha'u'llah is correct as I have accepted Baha'u'llah is the one the Bab promised, He who God made Manifest.

I see you can offer no proof against Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

"even while still a suckling babe" has nothing to do with the age of those whom the Bab was addressing, He was not referring to an actual baby, He was using symbolic language to refer to something else.

Meanwhile, you missed the most important point of the passage: "And though no doubt is there about it, do Thou grant a respite of nineteen years as a token of Thy favour so that those who have embraced this Cause may be graciously rewarded by Thee. Thou art verily the Lord of grace abounding."

No, I mentioned it in the post literally right above/before your post: Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

No, I say that Baha'u'llah is correct as I have accepted Baha'u'llah is the one the Bab promised, He who God made Manifest.

I see you can offer no proof against Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony

You have not refuted me, you've done the opposite.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

That is called circular reasoning. You're saying that Baha'u'llah was correct because Baha'u'llah said that he was correct.
I've shown several times here, that The Bab shows that Baha'u'llah was incorrect.





The two quotes above show how intellectually dishonest you Baha'i's are.

How in the hell does "do thou grant a respite of nineteen years as a token", become "Bahaullah declared in the year nineteen". Both are completely different things.

One is a warning given nineteen years years in advance, the other one is a literal year being the nineteenth year after a particular thing.
There is no connection between the two. This twisting of the text is almost as erroneous of how Christians try to distort the text of the Tanakh. Do you have no shame?

Plus I should also mention that applying later Baha'i calendar ideas onto the text of the Bayan is anachronistic and therefore an obvious fallacy when approaching the idea of Prophecy. Aside from the obvious idea of circular reasoning, it is also known as an assumed conclusion.

Baha'u'llah's claims rely on The Bab, so it requires judging Baha'u'llah via The Bab.
What these Baha'i's are doing is judging The Bab via Baha'u'llah. Again, chronologically fallacious, as this is an anachronism.
And again this is aside from the fact that they are trying to distort what the text says from turning it from "Grant a respite of nineteen years" into now being "announces himself on the nineteenth year of our calendar".

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

No, I'm not a believer of any religion, Egyptian nor any other.

I just use that Avatar because my forum name is Ancient Soul, and the Avatar is the BA, the symbol of the soul that departs form the person upon death and hovers over the body.

I have no religion, and my spiritual path is a huge topic, w-a-y to huge to even know where to start.

You could make a thread about it, and discuss it in bits over time there, I'd definitely visit and be interested in finding out more about your thoughts and experiences.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

As far as I know Donner says that books like al Akbar al thiwaal records some exploits of Alexander but he says that Dhul Qarnnayn is "attributed" to Alexander in the Quran. This parallelism theories dont really sit well with this level of scholarship. It is done by people like Andy Bannister but their scholarship on the matter is so poor its pseudo scholarship.



Tell me Artis. When does Said Reynolds date the Syriac Alexander Romance to?

You see, I stated earlier that Dhul Qarnain means "two seasons". Qarana in arabic mens season, era, time period or generation. The idea of "two horns" is a letter interpolation based on a supposed head gear but if you read through the Quran you would see that it always meant a generation. Thus there is a question mark.

There are some parallels but parallels occur everywhere. Doesn't mean Muhammed plagiarised from the Alexander Romance. Muhammed has to be a multi lingual google to get all of these texts including the OT, the NT, Epic of Gilgamesh, Ancient Greek texts, and many others. Said's parallelism borders on the word Dhul Qarnain, Alexanders exploits of the so called "Zalimoon" and traveling up and down, but Dhul Qarnain being a two horned person is a much later interpretation and not from the Quranic usage of the phrase. Also the Quran doesnt say wall or gate, it says a barrier or a saddha. People assumed, post alexandrian inference upon the Qur'an that it is a wall. But read the Quran.

Anyway this is all way off the topic.

As for the Bahai Topic (Bahai people can answer as well, ideally):
So, what do you think the steps are for these people in their converting to the Bahai religion? Like, first they somehow come in contact with some literature or some Bahai person who directs them to some literature, what is that literature typically? Then what happens? How do they convert or learn about the Bahai stuff and what do they learn and start with and what comes next and at what point of learning and practicing are they considered a full blown Bahai? How do they learn how to say their prayers and stuff like that? It generally seems so mysterious to me the way people are answering and like they are shying away from giving the entire scoop in detail of what they went through, the whole process step by step, and what they are doing now, if they pay dues or fees for membership even or something, like nothing about it is really clear to me from the perspective of the inside experience that I could view in my head like a step by step movie or something.

As for the Seleucus Topic:
I don't know when Reynolds dates it exactly, but it sounds like the dates I have read place it right around the same time as the Qur'an was said to have been coming along. As far as I'm aware though, I don't think it is a case of plagiarism really (even though people may excitedly suggest such, anything to denigrate and call into question the Qur'an), but rather that the Qur'an seems to indicate a widespread familiarity with this story and person or character, and were asking about such or these stories were being transmitted around the area, so the Qur'an used it (as it does with other stories and characters, like the story of the Cave and their coming out of the cave at a later time period). I don't think the Qur'an was making mention of some mysterious and totally unheard of character which History also forgot, and I don't think it was making reference to Alexander the Great either, but the very famous in the Middle East and regions where the Qur'an would later travel person of Seleucus I Nicator, who lived a long life, had two different sorts of seasons or careers, once under Alexander, then as founder of of Seleucid Dynasty, who traveled apparently in the directions and places that Dhul Karnain was said to have traveled, and had soldiers and workers and numerous constructions projects and was known to help and protect communities and people, even building barriers and all that. His tales and exploits were circulated for generations upon generations until they were attributed to Alexander the Great in the Alexander Romance.

So lets say its not Seleucus Nicator who everyone used to see on coinage with his two bull horns and his two bull horns (possibly also representing two seasons even and spanning horizons and all the extended symbolism) and used to put it on his elephants and horses and had all these building projects for years and was an old man by the time he died, is not Dhul Karnain, do you have any alternative suggestions of who the Qur'an may be making mention of, and why the story elements seem to appear in the Alexander Romance, and why the Qur'an seems to just very calmly and confidently make mention of some character as if people are supposed to know who it is talking about and which would be regionally familiar to people, but is instead making mention of some unheard of figure with no real impact anywhere and lost to history? Alexander did not do the things that Dhul Karnain was said to have done really, and died far too soon to have accomplished much overall, but Seleucus controlled the biggest Empire chunk the world had ever seen at the time and had numerous building projects, was known and beloved through the regions that would later adopt Islam, and was known as a religious and pious man who was not like the wild Alexander. So, I thought it might be Seleucus that the Qur'an is talking about, but who do you think it is referring to if you were to give it some healthy guesses? What accounts for these tales seemingly appearing in the Alexander Romance? Why does the Qur'an make mention of any of it, if this is an unknown figure from an unknown tale?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Yeah I fully reject that as well. Arguments made to support Alexander are quite weak when both accounts are compared to each other. The points that supporters of such arguments try to make are quite superficial, usually relying on shock value to support their claim. Every little aspect that they try to stretch out is the polar opposite of what the Qur'an says about Dhul Qarnayn.
Plus Qarn doesn't explicitly mean "horn" and other appearances of the word Qarn in the Qur'an are usually translated to "Age/Epoch".

Do you have any guesses who you think it might be referring to? I don't think it is Alexander either, even though apparently a lot of people even in the past have liked the idea.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Quran 2:23 makes this decision clear and easy.

"And if ye are in doubt As to what We have revealed From time to time to Our servant, Then produce a Sura Like thereunto; And call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true."

So if the babble of the next door neighbour was on par with the Quran, then you have a cause to consider it a miracle, after all the Quran is viewed in that light.

Likewise, we have the same choice with the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.

I have read your posts and contained within all the niceties, are some quite disturbing statements.

So I have become very cautious about where you are going with all that you offer.

Regards Tony

I think the word for my writing and posts might be "insidious".

"
insidious
[inˈsidēəs]
ADJECTIVE

1. proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects.

"

The harmful effect though, is to create doubt in people and make them question their beliefs and decisions, by using various tactics.

It is not meant to lead to what I believe is ultimate harm, but what I think is a healthy irreverence and skepticism regarding the things and people we have learned to love or trust somehow.

I tend to, under The Artis Magistra moniker especially for some reason, end up doing this word too:
invidious
[inˈvidēəs]
ADJECTIVE

1. (of an action or situation) likely to arouse or incur resentment or anger in others.

That is likely because, some of the rhetoric and rhetorical tactics end up insulting things people have spent their lives on, or have very strong feelings about, and they are put in a difficult position where, after so much investment, it becomes difficult or even impossible to honestly face the realities of the situation, which can be dire and depressing.

It literally pains me though, and its no exaggeration, to disappoint you, because you are in my view a noble person who is strict and good, and are also elderly looking (that is not meant as an insult), so I don't like to really bother you with any of this, it bothers me a lot really the thought or feeling that you might be disturbed at all by my writing or my work.

I'm overt though, nothing I've said is deceptive or at least I'm not lying about myself.

Even though the mainstream Muslims might not think so, or might try to argue me and my points, I am a Muslim generally (and entirely), and by that I mean a Universal Monotheist, who takes all the various Gods as One God. A Muslim, however sweet they may seem, is never going to be really fond of anything or anyone they think might be tricked, harmed, deceived, or outside of their view of Islam and excellence, even in the slightest (which is probably why those annoying pant leg length people are so annoying and getting in everyone's business as well), Muslims, like any Fundamentalists or "True" types, can not stand by and think genuinely good things about people they care about or like (or might potentially like more) who are not identifying as Muslim and practicing Islam (as they see fit). So in other words, never, ever, trust a Muslim. If a Muslim leaves you alone entirely, they probably don't care about you at all, and if a Muslim keeps annoying you (like Link might be annoying that girl), they want you to be like them and closer to their beliefs and to convince people or whatever. Its annoying, but it is how a lot of religious people are.

As far as I'm aware, if you're a devout Bahai person, you're basically practicing Islam (as far as the barely any information or detail I'm receiving), which is mostly fine by me, and the only thorn in it all, is the disrespect Muslims feel and have towards Baha'u'llah and maybe Bab as well, and so, this thread is for the purpose of either getting people over that hump, or calling into question the legitimacy of Baha'u'llah as well as any other heroes of salvation.

The possible results of people deeply questioning themselves and everything, are a weakening or abandonment of all religions and religious practices, an adoption of some religion, or strengthening of an already practiced religion.

I think that whatever is good (and if everything is good and great, then to take everything) in the writings of any religion or religious figure should be taken, read, adopted, applied effectively for good and spreading good. So that there is no harm ultimately in the writings and teachings of Baha'u'llah or his movement, except in the tendency of many of its followers to disregard the Qur'an as outdated and to ignore it in favor of the endless seeming words of Baha'u'llah, especially if the Qur'an is supposedly from God, and even more disturbingly if Baha'u'llah is just some guy who writes or talks a lot and is not God, the manifestation of God, or really much of anything to do with God or God's commands, then one is possibly wasting their time and life on him instead of focusing on the Qur'an (which the Bahai claim was the real legitimate scripture preceding or before Baha'u'llah and Bab).

If the Qur'an is to be disregarded also, then we would be forced to go back to the New Testament, and if that is thrown out, to the Old Testament, and if that is thrown out, then maybe the Mahayana writings, then the Theravada if the Mahayana is rejected, and then back to the Zoroastrian original works, then back to the Upanishads and Vedas and all that, and back and back with our rejecting what is outdated or what is "too new", until we come to see the reality, and nature, and brute animal horror of nature and life.

So why is Baha'u'llah a thorn in my soft flesh? I think it is because of Baha'u'llah simply being the cause or focal point of disagreement and differences, inhibiting a more complete mutual acceptance of One Religion, while being irritatingly "so close" to just that, but making claims which are to Muslim ears (which I personally take to be sort of square shaped donkey ears in my case, like those of Sutekh) unacceptable, creates difficulties and separation from being absorbed into the Muslim Borg Blob. The Muslims are the majority by far, even at the time of the early days of the Bahai movement, so why are they being asked to accept these things from someone in favor of a One World Religion, when they have the One World Religion already, are bigger in number, and it would be more efficient to simply be absorbed back into and under the fatty Muslim fold?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Part 2

So, this is in the debate area, and I might not exactly represent the God that everyone believes in and prefers, but if it is the intention and strategy of the Bahai that a single religion covers all the Earth, then why not use Islam for that purpose, which is by now well ahead of the game in such a respect, and has a lot more benefits in many ways, for example, having a single and pretty small efficient little wisdom book and guide, massive population so a big head start and chance at One World Religion, no weirdness about an executed person as their founder but rather an undeniable conqueror who actually won and won big, I mean, if we were talking strategy, Islam seems much more efficient to infiltrate and modernize and use to create the One World Religion and New World Order than starting from scratch and taking on the big boys who are already present.

Islam is Theism's last leg almost, because Christianity is pretty much a big joke now and can barely stand or sustain itself. Soon, Christianity will be Humanity's Crucifix Shaped Wooden Leg, but Islam will retain life. I don't know where on the body of humanity, the Great Adam Manifest, Bahai will stand or remain. It appears like its going to be between Secular Atheism and Spiritualism with Islam as its formal "organized" (but barely organized) leader or "official" lasting religion.

Talk to a Christian, and you'll see that even in their own hearts, all they have is fervor and their religious is only a fervor which short-circuits logic and allows them to ignore all the terribly doubtful things they put their trust and faith in. Most people can't do it, and most people now won't do it, but still are afraid, and still want God or some kind of control measures and authority and order, and so Islam has for them that sense of magic without doing away with logic and reasoning or needing blinding and distracting emotional energy and expressions like that to be convincing and stand. That is why Islam is generally considered by groups like the Joy of Satan to be a much greater threat than Christianity which they also consider practically defeated. Islam is a mechanism of human thought which can easily absorb practically everything, breaking its bones, and reforming it in its own image (my version of Islam especially, which is likely reminiscent also of the Early Islam which absorbed Gods and peoples so easily as it trampled upon and transformed their cultures to introduce them into the Empire of One).

It doesn't seem too hard to look with bright eyes into the future to see where things are headed. It could be, that if Baha'u'llah appeared to have taken over Islam and Bahai was the biggest or second biggest religion and single biggest denomination in the world, that I'd simply join whoever appears to be the likely winner with views close enough to mine, in order to ride them into victory, but nothing seems to indicate to me that such a successful progression is underway in comparison to Islam in its various forms.

I'll tell you what else thrills me and pleases me greatly. I like when things are sorted and resolved and better organized or clarified. One of my favorite things is when people discover some truth about themselves, or have the switch in their head turn on or off, and they end up joining or possibly more enjoyably abandoning their religions. To a Muslim, this typically translates as "They were never understanding/they never believed anyway" and so it gives the feeling that a Hypocrite or a Fledgling/Weakling has been removed from the population or the mix, like cleaning something up. Thuggish or Cave-Man like Muslims (of which there seem to be many) often take the opportunity to freak out and try to refute these people or bring them back into Islam otherwise, but this is laughable and seemingly in error, and most likely these sorts of Bullies are themselves extremely weak in their beliefs and understandings and on the very edge of leaving themselves, so that is why it seems like such a big deal to them, and I sincerely hope their faith is utterly destroyed and removed from them, because they do no favors to "The Cause" or "The State".

So, I love when people leave Islam, reject Islam, especially when they were believers, born believers, or converts. All elimination of the weak and luke-warm and disbelievers is pleasing to me. I love also when Theists become Atheists, when Christians lose their faith and belief and trust in Christ, all of it, even when people who believe or believed in Magic find that they just don't believe in that anymore (all the while I continue to enjoy all my magic).

So, no one said it was going to be easy, and I like to take part in putting the faith of all people to the test, including my own, always, every day, every moment, harshly. Maybe I'm a spiritual sado-masochist, but really I think its for a good cause. The Qur'an says "Make Religion Pure For Allah Only" and so I rigorously scrape at everything to watch all the things that will fall away, fall away. Then I seem to be granted magical boons in response to this activity, which (perhaps wrongfully) bolster my confidence that perhaps in some way I am working at the performance of some sort of good deed or "doing God's work" as some say.

I believe that Baha'u'llah was also doing "God's work" and that the Bahai people continue to do so as well, but that they should not be spared the most rigorous of questioning, and should not spare themselves that either.

Has a Bahai person ever gone from Bahai to the Qur'an and Islam? I don't know, have you ever heard of a case like that? It wouldn't mean much to me if they did even, since I'd be suspect of their "Islam" anyway, just like I am suspect of practically any "Islam" that people claim (particularly if they are deeply enamored with Islamic cultures, cultural dress, or the Hadith literature which in my beliefs would cause utter revulsion in any true devotee of the True God, much like the writings of the Bible should cause disgust for what they say and say about God in my opinion).

So, what were some of the points I made in this typical of me blathering:
1. I believe that my writing has a function of potentially leading people to question everything, in order to shake the tree and see what falls and how strong it really is.
2. I think there is a cause for doubt regarding many claims of human beings and even in their abilities or acts.
3. If the strategy or goal is a One World Religion, you have some easier options and vehicles to use potentially than a new campaign with a new religion distinguishing itself.
4. I am pleased by all people increasing in faith or losing their faith, and perceive my insidious activities and spiritual venom to have an ultimately good cause, like Chemotherapy.
5. Only the strongest (or stupidest) will survive (in their understandings).

 

[firedragon]

So, what do you think the steps are for these people in their converting to the Bahai religion? Like, first they somehow come in contact with some literature or some Bahai person who directs them to some literature, what is that literature typically? Then what happens? How do they convert or learn about the Bahai stuff and what do they learn and start with and what comes next and at what point of learning and practicing are they considered a full blown Bahai? How do they learn how to say their prayers and stuff like that? It generally seems so mysterious to me the way people are answering and like they are shying away from giving the entire scoop in detail of what they went through, the whole process step by step, and what they are doing now, if they pay dues or fees for membership even or something, like nothing about it is really clear to me from the perspective of the inside experience that I could view in my head like a step by step movie or something.

Oh. I am clueless of how someone begins his journey in becoming a Bahai brother. And no speculations whatsoever.

I don't know when Reynolds dates it exactly

He dates the Syriac text to the 7th century.

but rather that the Qur'an seems to indicate a widespread familiarity with this story and person or character

Very different. I have explained. Similarities too. For example, Noah and the flood is very similar to the epic of Gilgamesh. Maybe both of them had the same source.

Do you understand? One story can have a similar source, and two different texts picks it up and enforces it upon their "hero".

This is normal. But the Quran does not have a hero there, and Dhul Qarnain does not mean "two horns", it means two seasons.

Peace.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Oh. I am clueless of how someone begins his journey in becoming a Bahai brother. And no speculations whatsoever.



He dates the Syriac text to the 7th century.



Very different. I have explained. Similarities too. For example, Noah and the flood is very similar to the epic of Gilgamesh. Maybe both of them had the same source.

Do you understand? One story can have a similar source, and two different texts picks it up and enforces it upon their "hero".

This is normal. But the Quran does not have a hero there, and Dhul Qarnain does not mean "two horns", it means two seasons.

Peace.

Do you have any guesses though for who you might think it may be referring to? I think Utnapishtim or whatever is likely the same person as Noah is supposed to be:

Tastes and Preferences: Curious about why you choose what you choose!

I made that other thread about tastes or whatever, you can use that one for the stuff you didn't want to write here.