Qur'an Vs Bible Vs Bhagavad Gita Vs None

[loverofhumanity]

I couldn't find your response to this question. Are there quotes from the Scriptures of the other religions in Baha'u'llah's writings? Especially from Hindu and Buddhist Scripture? Then does Abdul Baha' have any quotes from them? And again, where in the Baha'i writings does it say that Baha'is should believe in all these "Holy Books"?

In various Tablets to the leaders of various religions, Baha’u’llah does quote His relevance to their Holy Books. For example in a Tablet to the Christians He refers to Himself as the ‘Spirit of Truth’, as the ‘Word’ that the disciples could not bear to hear at the time, and as the ‘Father’.

In Tablets to Muslims He refers to Himself as the ‘Great Announcement’ etc. To a Zoroastrian enquirer He confirmed He was the Shah Bahram foretold by Zoroaster. And similarly to Jews He stated He was the Promised One seated on the throne of David, the King of Glory.

Sorry but there are too many to list. You will have to research these for yourself so I have included some links for your convenience. There is also the Book of Certitude which explains the symbolical meaning behind many of the scriptures.

Baha’u’llah states in a Tablet that with interpretation not all are literal and not all symbolical. So as we consider Him to be the Promised One, we stand by His interpretations.


Bahá'í Reference Library - Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh

Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster and Related Subjects

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Jewish laws also have stoning to death for certain crimes. At that time in history there were no courts, lawyers, judges, police or correction facilities so punishments for crime had to also act as a deterrent. The Quran i believe is absolutely correct for that time. Unfortunately other Prophets have appeared which have adjusted these laws for the times we are living in but the clergy do not accept that another Prophet will appear after Muhammad. So they are stuck with laws which were meant for a different age.

Premeditated violence is not supported by the Quran, only self defense.

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:


J M Rodwell

Laws and judges and law enforcement predate Judaism quite a bit.

 

[loverofhumanity]

These different Holy Books all address one main theme and that is to subdue our lower self, to wage war against the insistent self to declare jihad on our ego and to exalt us spiritually. To draw nearer to our true selves as spiritual beings is the main purpose of all Holy Books. To transform the individuals and society.

That they each promote one main truth is quite clear. With Christ it was love, with Muhammad ummah or community, with Moses the Ten Commandments. Buddha focused on mindfulness and meditation while Krishna taught we are not our bodies but spiritual beings.

We stand to gain from all religions if we are open minded enough to learn from them. It is to our own advantage to learn to meditate and become virtuous beings detached from ego and selfishness.

Self mastery, all these religions teach us is self forgetfulness. To serve humanity and work for peace and goodwill between all. This is the message I believe they all teach in their own way.

 

[joelr]

These different Holy Books all address one main theme and that is to subdue our lower self, to wage war against the insistent self to declare jihad on our ego and to exalt us spiritually. To draw nearer to our true selves as spiritual beings is the main purpose of all Holy Books. To transform the individuals and society.

That they each promote one main truth is quite clear. With Christ it was love, with Muhammad ummah or community, with Moses the Ten Commandments. Buddha focused on mindfulness and meditation while Krishna taught we are not our bodies but spiritual beings.

We stand to gain from all religions if we are open minded enough to learn from them. It is to our own advantage to learn to meditate and become virtuous beings detached from ego and selfishness.

Self mastery, all these religions teach us is self forgetfulness. To serve humanity and work for peace and goodwill between all. This is the message I believe they all teach in their own way.

All good subjects which we don't need Gods and divine beings in the story to promote.

One of Gita's subject is "the war within, the struggle for self-mastery that every human being must wage if he or she is to emerge from life victorious"

 

[KWED]

The Jewish laws also have stoning to death for certain crimes. At that time in history there were no courts, lawyers, judges, police or correction facilities so punishments for crime had to also act as a deterrent.

If there was no system for arresting people for crimes, finding people guilty of breaking laws, or of punishing them for it, then how could punishments for breaking laws work. It is an incoherent argument.

The Quran i believe is absolutely correct for that time.

So you don't believe the Quran is applicable today?

Unfortunately other Prophets have appeared which have adjusted these laws for the times we are living in

So you think the laws should still be the same? You just said that they no longer apply.

but the clergy do not accept that another Prophet will appear after Muhammad. So they are stuck with laws which were meant for a different age.

You initially said that there was nothing violent or intolerant in the teachings of Muhammad. Then you are said that there is, but it no longer applies. Then you said it was unfortunate that the laws were adjusted to suit changing society.
You seem hopelessly confused.

Premeditated violence is not supported by the Quran, only self defense.

Seriously? Didn't you read the verse I quoted? That is prescribing premeditated violence.
Then there is 5:33 "The punishment for those who spread mischief is that they be killed, crucified or dismembered". More premeditated violence.
"Fight the idolators until all religion is for Allah" 8:39
"Kill the idolators wherever you find them, lie in ambush and besiege them..."

All the above describe premeditated, aggressive acts of violence, not self-defence. How can you besiege someone in self defence? How can you ambush someone without "attacking them first"?

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not

the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

That's an interesting translation. The actual words used in the Quran are "do not transgress"

The entire concept of not initiating fighting is incoherent in the context of the overall narrative in the Quran after the migration to Medina. Muhammad regularly sends out expeditions to attack various tribes. Just ask yourself how he managed to conquer half the Arabian peninsula by "self defence"? It it was the case that Muhammad only fought in self defence, Islam should not have spread beyond the surroundings of Medina during his lifetime.

Of course, you could argue that Muhammad regularly ignored and broke Allah's laws, but that just opens up a whole new barrel o kettles.

Anywho, it is interesting that you have changed your position from "There is no violence in the Quran. You got that from anti-Islam websites!" to "Yes, there is violence, but it is reasonable and justified".

 

[KWED]

Yes, I make mistakes because I am a fallible human being but when people point out my mistakes I change my position.

You clearly do not, as has been repeatedly demonstrated here.

The Qur'an is more authentic because, according to my understanding, the scribes who wrote it knew Muhammad and actually heard His voice.

1. Not the case. Much of the Quran was not recorded until after his death. Caliph Uthman was concerned that many of those who had memorised the Quran were being killed in battle, so he ordered it to be compiled and recorded.
2. Even if it was written down as Muhammad spoke, why does than make it true?

 

[Bree]

The way I interpret that verse is that the soul who sins will not attain eternal life. Eternal life is the state of the soul that is close to God. A dead soul still continues to exist, but it is not close to God.

The way I interpret that verse is that the body returns to the ground and the thoughts he had with his brain perish, but his spirit (soul) does not perish. The spirit (soul) lives on and passes to the spiritual world where it continues to live and have consciousness. It takes on a spiritual body.

Can i suggest that rather then 'interpret' the verse, you just accept what the verse is saying??

Is it so hard to accept that a verse is already interpreted by its writer? If the writer said 'the soul dies' why do you feel the need to 'interpret' that differently?

Also, if the bible (Gods Word) says that the spirit 'returns to the true God who gave it' then why do you believe it means that the spirit and the person who had that spirit are still living??

If the spirit is from God, it belongs to God and if it leaves the body when the person dies, then what makes you think the dead person still has control of that spirit? What makes you think that 'spirit' is the person themselves??

 

[loverofhumanity]

All good subjects which we don't need Gods and divine beings in the story to promote.

One of Gita's subject is "the war within, the struggle for self-mastery that every human being must wage if he or she is to emerge from life victorious"

The Gita is what I was referring to with regards to the war within. My personal view is that prayer helps us psyche ourselves up more acutely to fight this inner battle.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If there was no system for arresting people for crimes, finding people guilty of breaking laws, or of punishing them for it, then how could punishments for breaking laws work. It is an incoherent argument.

So you don't believe the Quran is applicable today?

So you think the laws should still be the same? You just said that they no longer apply.

You initially said that there was nothing violent or intolerant in the teachings of Muhammad. Then you are said that there is, but it no longer applies. Then you said it was unfortunate that the laws were adjusted to suit changing society.
You seem hopelessly confused.

Seriously? Didn't you read the verse I quoted? That is prescribing premeditated violence.
Then there is 5:33 "The punishment for those who spread mischief is that they be killed, crucified or dismembered". More premeditated violence.
"Fight the idolators until all religion is for Allah" 8:39
"Kill the idolators wherever you find them, lie in ambush and besiege them..."

All the above describe premeditated, aggressive acts of violence, not self-defence. How can you besiege someone in self defence? How can you ambush someone without "attacking them first"?

That's an interesting translation. The actual words used in the Quran are "do not transgress"

The entire concept of not initiating fighting is incoherent in the context of the overall narrative in the Quran after the migration to Medina. Muhammad regularly sends out expeditions to attack various tribes. Just ask yourself how he managed to conquer half the Arabian peninsula by "self defence"? It it was the case that Muhammad only fought in self defence, Islam should not have spread beyond the surroundings of Medina during his lifetime.

Of course, you could argue that Muhammad regularly ignored and broke Allah's laws, but that just opens up a whole new barrel o kettles.

Anywho, it is interesting that you have changed your position from "There is no violence in the Quran. You got that from anti-Islam websites!" to "Yes, there is violence, but it is reasonable and justified".

I haven’t changed my position. I just stated that harsh laws were needed at one time in human history and that as humanity evolved and created institutions and courts and corrective facilities, the latter Prophets adjusted the laws to the new reality.

It was after Muhammad died that Muslim leaders ceased obeying the Quran and did as they pleased. The Meccans declared war on the Muslims and forced them into exile. Muslims were at war with their oppressors and had every right to freedom of life and religion. Unfortunately they had to fight for it. The idolaters were those who oppressed and persecuted Muslims not unbelievers.


“Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who did not fight you for your religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal justly” [8] “It is only in regards to those who fought you for your religion, have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to take them as allies. And whoever takes them as Allies, then those are the oppressors” [9] Holy Quran, Surat (Al Mumtahina) Ch (60), verses (8-9)

2: 190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.


George Sale


2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:


J M Rodwell



2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.


N J Dawood



2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.



Marmaduke Pickthall

 

[KWED]

I haven’t changed my position.

I brought up the violent intolerance in the Quran.
You stated... "There is no such teaching which you are allocating to Muhammad and the Quran".
I cited the verses where such things are clearly stated.
You changed from "there are no such things in the Quran" to "Well, there are such things, but they were justified".
That is absolutely changing your position.

I just stated that harsh laws were needed at one time in human history and that as humanity evolved and created institutions and courts and corrective facilities, the latter Prophets adjusted the laws to the new reality.

That may be your opinion, but the billion-plus Muslims disagree. According to Islam, those punishments are still appropriate and acceptable. Because god's law does not change and WADR, it is not your place to tell Muslims what they believe.

It was after Muhammad died that Muslim leaders ceased obeying the Quran and did as they pleased.

I suggest you read some Islamic history. Muhammad conducted many aggressive, military expeditions.

The Meccans declared war on the Muslims and forced them into exile.

Again, you seem to be getting your info from biased sources. The Meccans tolerated Muhammad's blaspheming and anti-social behaviours for over 10 years (after all, at the time Mecca was a religiously tolerant society where many religions were peacefully practiced side-by-side, so why would another one be a problem?). In all that time, a total of two Muslims were killed. Exile was the only remaining option after Muhammad lost the protection of his powerful uncle because he and his followers refused to respect the rules and traditions of Meccan society.

Muslims were at war with their oppressors and had every right to freedom of life and religion. Unfortunately they had to fight for it. The idolaters were those who oppressed and persecuted Muslims not unbelievers.

After the migration there was no conflict until Muhammad started raiding Meccan caravans. The first casualty of the war was a Quraysh guard accompanying a caravan, killed by the Muslim raiders.
The first major battle (Badr) happened because the Quraysh found out that Muhammad had sent an army to attack a large caravan returning from Syria. Mecca sent out a force to protect the caravan and the battle ensued when the two forces met.

“Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who did not fight you for your religion and did not drive you out of your homes.

Notice it says "does not forbid you", not "you must". An odd way of putting it if Muslims are obliged to "deal justly and kindly" with their opponents. It certainly allows Muslims to deal unjustly and unkindly if they decide to do so.

“It is only in regards to those who fought you for your religion, have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to take them as allies

So anyone who has opposed the Muslims should not be treated justly and kindly.

Also interesting that a few verses earlier, Allah states that "hatred and enmity" towards disbelievers is "a good example to follow", until they submit to Islam, so clearly establishing a culture of hostile antagonism.

2: 190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.
George Sale
2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:
J M Rodwell
2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.
N J Dawood
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Marmaduke Pickthall

Interesting that you selected old translations by European orientalists. Here is another selection. All from Islamic sources. Almost all use "transgression". So at best, you have to accept that the issue is unclear.

 

[KWED]

Can i suggest that rather then 'interpret' the verse, you just accept what the verse is saying??

Is it so hard to accept that a verse is already interpreted by its writer? If the writer said 'the soul dies' why do you feel the need to 'interpret' that differently?

Also, if the bible (Gods Word) says that the spirit 'returns to the true God who gave it' then why do you believe it means that the spirit and the person who had that spirit are still living??

If the spirit is from God, it belongs to God and if it leaves the body when the person dies, then what makes you think the dead person still has control of that spirit? What makes you think that 'spirit' is the person themselves??

The other thing that gets me is the selective need for interpretation. It all seems to depend on whether a passage suits the person's existing agenda, rather than shaping their agenda to suit what god said.
Could it be mere coincidence that the verses that require re-interpretation are usually ones that don't sit well with a peaceful and tolerant worldview? Why can't religionists just accept that their gods were often violent and intolerant, as shown in their scriptures?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I brought up the violent intolerance in the Quran.
You stated... "There is no such teaching which you are allocating to Muhammad and the Quran".
I cited the verses where such things are clearly stated.
You changed from "there are no such things in the Quran" to "Well, there are such things, but they were justified".
That is absolutely changing your position.

That may be your opinion, but the billion-plus Muslims disagree. According to Islam, those punishments are still appropriate and acceptable. Because god's law does not change and WADR, it is not your place to tell Muslims what they believe.

I suggest you read some Islamic history. Muhammad conducted many aggressive, military expeditions.

Again, you seem to be getting your info from biased sources. The Meccans tolerated Muhammad's blaspheming and anti-social behaviours for over 10 years (after all, at the time Mecca was a religiously tolerant society where many religions were peacefully practiced side-by-side, so why would another one be a problem?). In all that time, a total of two Muslims were killed. Exile was the only remaining option after Muhammad lost the protection of his powerful uncle because he and his followers refused to respect the rules and traditions of Meccan society.

After the migration there was no conflict until Muhammad started raiding Meccan caravans. The first casualty of the war was a Quraysh guard accompanying a caravan, killed by the Muslim raiders.
The first major battle (Badr) happened because the Quraysh found out that Muhammad had sent an army to attack a large caravan returning from Syria. Mecca sent out a force to protect the caravan and the battle ensued when the two forces met.

Notice it says "does not forbid you", not "you must". An odd way of putting it if Muslims are obliged to "deal justly and kindly" with their opponents. It certainly allows Muslims to deal unjustly and unkindly if they decide to do so.

So anyone who has opposed the Muslims should not be treated justly and kindly.

Also interesting that a few verses earlier, Allah states that "hatred and enmity" towards disbelievers is "a good example to follow", until they submit to Islam, so clearly establishing a culture of hostile antagonism.

Interesting that you selected old translations by European orientalists. Here is another selection. All from Islamic sources. Almost all use "transgression". So at best, you have to accept that the issue is unclear.

View attachment 64292

You’re entitled to your opinion. If you believe you are right then keep that belief. I see it differently so you go your way and I’ll go mine.

 

[KWED]

You’re entitled to your opinion. If you believe you are right then keep that belief. I see it differently so you go your way and I’ll go mine.

You claimed there was no violence, intolerance, oppression, etc in the Quran. That was your opinion.
I pointed out the verses that clearly promote or condone such things. That is not opinion.

I have noticed a pattern with Bahai apologists on here of claiming everything is just "opinion" when their claims are refuted - and yet still insist on absolute certainty with things like Bahaullah being a messenger of god, despite there bing no evidence or rational argument to elevate it above mere opinion.
Seems like Bahai opinions are facts, but real world facts are just opinions.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You claimed there was no violence, intolerance, oppression, etc in the Quran. That was your opinion.
I pointed out the verses that clearly promote or condone such things. That is not opinion.

I have noticed a pattern with Bahai apologists on here of claiming everything is just "opinion" when their claims are refuted - and yet still insist on absolute certainty with things like Bahaullah being a messenger of god, despite there bing no evidence or rational argument to elevate it above mere opinion.
Seems like Bahai opinions are facts, but real world facts are just opinions.

Baha’is believe that Muhammad is a Prophet of God and the Quran to be the Word of God and both to be perfect. But as to Muslims, they are just ordinary people.

Baha’is should be the last ones to publicly defend Muhammad and the Quran considering we have been persecuted in Iran for over 175 years. The only reason being because we know that the fault lies with the people nothing to do with Muhammad and the Quran.

Baha’is in Iran are born in a Muslim country and know more than many about Muhammad and the Quran and clearly revere both because they know violence and intolerance never originated from either Muhammad or the Quran.

 

[KWED]

Baha’is believe that Muhammad is a Prophet of God and the Quran to be the Word of God and both to be perfect.

OK. So you therefore consider torturing of people to death to be an acceptable and applicable practice.

Baha’is should be the last ones to publicly defend Muhammad and the Quran considering we have been persecuted in Iran for over 175 years.

Why? I thought you believe they are perfect?

The only reason being because we know that the fault lies with the people nothing to do with Muhammad and the Quran.

So anyone following the entire Quran to the letter is a good and true Muslim and gets your approval?

Baha’is in Iran are born in a Muslim country and know more than many about Muhammad and the Quran and clearly revere both because they know violence and intolerance never originated from either Muhammad or the Quran.

Well, you just contradicted yourself there.
You claim that Iranian Bahais are experts on the Quran, yet you also say that they claim that there is no violence or intolerance in the Quran.
As the latter is demonstrably false, then the former must be as well.

 

[loverofhumanity]

OK. So you therefore consider torturing of people to death to be an acceptable and applicable practice.

Why? I thought you believe they are perfect?

So anyone following the entire Quran to the letter is a good and true Muslim and gets your approval?

Well, you just contradicted yourself there.
You claim that Iranian Bahais are experts on the Quran, yet you also say that they claim that there is no violence or intolerance in the Quran.
As the latter is demonstrably false, then the former must be as well.

We don’t believe in violence nor that the Quran or Muhammad taught it. As I said if you believe differently then keep that belief. That’s your right to believe what you want. I see it completely differently. So you go your way and I’ll go mine. I’m not going to change my views just like you wont change yours.

If you want to say you’re right and I’m wrong feel most welcome. It’s your own view and I know different so believe what you want.

 

[loverofhumanity]

OK. So you therefore consider torturing of people to death to be an acceptable and applicable practice.

Why? I thought you believe they are perfect?

So anyone following the entire Quran to the letter is a good and true Muslim and gets your approval?

Well, you just contradicted yourself there.
You claim that Iranian Bahais are experts on the Quran, yet you also say that they claim that there is no violence or intolerance in the Quran.
As the latter is demonstrably false, then the former must be as well.

I don’t believe it’s fair to judge past ages by todays standards. As I tried to point out that the harsh laws which may by todays standards feel violent and intolerant, were aimed at education vicious barbarians who committed things like infanticide if the first born was a female and there were serial rapes, murders and theft between the various tribes. At that time there were no prisons, corrective facilities, police, judges, courts or lawyers, so if crime was not deterred, the result would be repeat offending resulting in further harm to the innocent.

Just killing for killing sake is forbidden in the Quran. Muslims were only permitted to defend themselves against their oppressors and fight against those who took their homes and possessions etc.

Baha’is fully accept Muhammad and the Quran as peaceful and just and that it teaches tolerance. It’s disobedience to the Quran which is the cause of any violence or intolerance for the Quran states that there should be ‘no compulsion in religion’, yet fanatics commit atrocities against other faiths despite the Quran commanding them not to.

Those who mislead Muslims are their clergy who concoct interpretations of the Quran and twist its meanings in order to perpetrate violence. A new Messenger from God, foretold in the Quran has appeared and given laws adapted to todays age. However, the clergy insist that no Prophet will come after Muhammad, which contradicts what the Quran states, so they continue to this day to apply laws meant for savages and barbarians not our civilised world.

I personally believe that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding the Quran and Islam and that it cannot be judged by todays standards as it was revealed for an entirely different time, circumstance and people not todays modern world.

The Messenger for today I believe is Baha’u’llah, Who has Brough teachings for world reconciliation and world unity which we need so badly in this age.

 

[CG Didymus]

This thread only mentions the Bhagvad Gita, but what about all the other Hindu Scriptures?

There are so many scriptures that without referring to which specific Hindu or Buddhist ones it is difficult to make a comment.

Okay, let's just take the Hindu Scriptures for now. Are any of them, especially the ones that mention Krishna, accepted as The Truth from God by Baha'u'llah? If so, great. If not, then does Abdul Baha' specifically say which of the Hindu Scriptures should be accepted as The Truth from God by Baha'is?

I'd be fine with all of the ancient religious writings just being based on the myths, legends and traditions of the people from where those writings came from. They have great meaning for them. And maybe important spiritual lessons for all of us. But... were they the "revealed" word of God by the same God that the Baha'is say is the one and only true God? And that is why it is important to know which ones that the Baha'i Faith supports as being true Scriptures from God and not merely the spiritual writings of a people and culture. Because Baha'i do seem to leave off a lot of religious writings from other cultures. Like the Greeks and Egyptians and others. What makes those not worthy? What makes them man-made and nothing more than myth and legend? But then the stories of something like the Bible are not myth and legend?

So, Islam has the Quran. Christianity the NT, Judaism the Bible... but beyond that? If Baha'is believe these other religions are true and were revealed by a manifestation, then there should be "official" Scriptures to that religion that Baha'is support, at least to some degree, as true.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Okay, let's just take the Hindu Scriptures for now. Are any of them, especially the ones that mention Krishna, accepted as The Truth from God by Baha'u'llah? If so, great. If not, then does Abdul Baha' specifically say which of the Hindu Scriptures should be accepted as The Truth from God by Baha'is?

I'd be fine with all of the ancient religious writings just being based on the myths, legends and traditions of the people from where those writings came from. They have great meaning for them. And maybe important spiritual lessons for all of us. But... were they the "revealed" word of God by the same God that the Baha'is say is the one and only true God? And that is why it is important to know which ones that the Baha'i Faith supports as being true Scriptures from God and not merely the spiritual writings of a people and culture. Because Baha'i do seem to leave off a lot of religious writings from other cultures. Like the Greeks and Egyptians and others. What makes those not worthy? What makes them man-made and nothing more than myth and legend? But then the stories of something like the Bible are not myth and legend?

So, Islam has the Quran. Christianity the NT, Judaism the Bible... but beyond that? If Baha'is believe these other religions are true and were revealed by a manifestation, then there should be "official" Scriptures to that religion that Baha'is support, at least to some degree, as true.

With all the religions including Krishna and the Gita, the spiritual virtues such as the love of God, detachment and spiritual qualities never need be questioned for they are eternal in all faiths so automatically accepted as truth. For example the wisdom of Buddha, mindfulness and meditation are all things the Writings of Baha’u’llah agree upon and promote also.

Then there are the social laws which might be things like eating meat or pork or fish and whether one can divorce or not. These laws are not eternal and change from age to age according to our evolution and progress etc.

Lastly there are man made doctrines derived from the interpretation of the clergy and religious leaders. So some may create the sacraments such as baptism, communion and also reincarnation as well as the prophecies regarding the future Promised One. In this area because there is so much disagreement, conflict, controversy and even thousands of sects and wars created over the true meanings, no ordinary man is able to solve this problem. So the scriptures of all Faiths speak of One Who will come and bring unity over these matters such as ‘the Spirit of Truth When He appears, will explain everything, that the true interpretation of the Quran will come on the Day of Judgement and so on.

So we can agree with all the spiritual virtues and teachings of all religions and organisations and truths proven by science. Only the social laws will vary but the true interpretation of the Holy Books it is stated cannot be unravelled by ordinary man.

To make this very important point I have quoted Revelation 5:5 which says just that. Only a God sent Messenger is able to do this.


1Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

Daniel 13:9

And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.”

Sura 7:50

50 And now have we brought them the Book: with knowledge have we explained it; a guidance and a mercy to them that believe. What have they to wait for now but its interpretation? When its interpretation13 shall come, they who aforetime were oblivious of it shall say, ‘The Prophets of our Lord did indeed bring the truth;

So CG ALL the interpretations going around by ordinary men, scholars and clerics, acoording to the Holy Texts are WRONG because the Scriptures state that ONLY the Promised One is able to unravel the true meanings, which are literal and which are symbolical not the Baha’is, Christians, Muslims or any other person.

We claim that Baha’u’llah is that One. The Guardian Shoghi Effendi stated that the Book of Certitude broke the "seals" of the "Book" referred to by Daniel, and disclosed the meaning of the "words" destined to remain "closed up" till the "time of the end."

 

[Trailblazer]

You clearly do not, as has been repeatedly demonstrated here.

When people point out what are my mistakes I admit I am wrong.
When people point out what are not my mistakes I do not admit I am wrong.

Even if it was written down as Muhammad spoke, why does than make it true?

I did not say that makes it true, I said it is more authentic than the Bible.