Thank God for the Prophets.....

[Truthseeker]

I believe in Baha'u'llah as a Prophet because of the evidence in favor of Him being a Prophet. If you look at Baha'u'llah you have to put aside your own opinion and decide whether he has a pipeline to God that we don't have. Of course I may be deluded but you don't know that Baha'u'llah has access to special knowledge because you have not investigated Him.

Among the proofs are that all of His predictions of the future came true. Also if you investigate the life of Baha'u'llah you see that He was an awesome figure that raised up the spirituality of those around Him. He said that He did not read the works of the Bab and yet he quoted from them. You have to decide whether He is a liar or whether His character was such as He wouldn't lie. Also why would He lie about getting a revelation from God since He was so spiritual. The Baha'i Faith has retained it's unity over the last 150 years. That's because of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. He passed authority in His Writings to Abdu'l-Baha and said He was an infallible interpreter of the Word of God. Abdu'l-Baha in turn passed authority Shoghi Effendi and the right to interpret the Word of God. After Shoghi Effendi came the Universal House of Justice that does not have the authority to interpret the Word of God. That is where are now. We have no clergy and everybody has the right to understand the Writings for himself, but not to impose their understanding upon others.

 

[Akivah]

Aren't these inconsistent?

In what way, bearing in mind the post that I was responding to?

 

[Akivah]

"We"? What about you? Are you saying, you have to agree with the Prophets? Do you ever doubt? What do you do with that if you do?

When I wrote 'we', I meant observant Jews, not you and I. Our prophets were speaking to their generation. That is part of the definition of a prophet within Judaism.

Do I ever doubt what? I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

[Akivah]

Don’t Jews believe that Moses received a revelation from God on Mt. Sinai? Wasn’t Moses the one primarily responsible for the Torah?

When you said “our prophets” were you referring to all the prophets in the Torah other than Moses?

Yes, G-d dictated the Torah to Moses and Moses got the Ten Sayings and the Oral Torah at Mount Sinai.

Yes, although Moses is a prophet, I don't generally think of him with that title. There is an entire section of the Tanakh that is called the prophets, and those are the ones that I think of as prophets. That is, I think of prophets as being all the prophets in the Hebrew bible, other than Moses.

Are you saying that if those prophets disagree with what Moses revealed in the Torah that proves that they are not prophets?

Yes. A chapter is Deuteronomy tells how to recognize a false prophet, such as jesus or John Smith.

Finally, don’t Jews believe that Moses was the greatest Prophet that ever lived?

Yes. My sloppiness is just due to Moses not being in the prophets section of the Tanakh. The five books of Moses are their own section in the Hebrew bible. You know, I think other religions like Islam and Christianity might have clearer message with less divergences if their point men had written their own books, like Moses did.

I apologize; I am not very familiar with the Torah or the Bible but I recently started posting to two Jewish posters on another forum so I have learned a few things about Judaism. I would consider them very orthodox Jews so your beliefs might differ.

No need to apologize, you've asked me the most coherent questions that I've gotten in a while.

I have no doubt that my beliefs differ from other Jews.

 

[metis]

In what way, bearing in mind the post that I was responding to?

The inconsistent statement in regards to the questionable reliability of Christian accounts versus previous Jewish accounts. You pan the former but not the latter.

 

[Windwalker]

I believe in Baha'u'llah as a Prophet because of the evidence in favor of Him being a Prophet.

To me, the true test is not weighing evidences, as with any of these sorts of approaches mistakes of reasoning, or evidences themselves, misinterpretations of what is considered, incorrect information, and a whole host of other things that go into biasing how and what one sees and considers. Rather, for me, when it comes to something on the level of spiritual Truth, it is not a matter for the mind to penetrate with logic arguments, but instead what your heart hears and registers as Truth. Like knows like. If you are using reasoning to find God, you are only hearing your own voice.

Like Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice and follow." He never says, "My sheep follow a path of deductive reasoning and conclude I am the Christ." That's a modern bastardization of spiritual reality, trying to make it a scientific thing. I consider that approach highly, and unfortunately misguided.

If you look at Baha'u'llah you have to put aside your own opinion and decide whether he has a pipeline to God that we don't have.

I would say yes, set aside opinions as they are a form of reasoning, a conclusion of reason. But don't then say, 'investigate the evidences", because what you end up doing is putting reasoning back into the mix, and the second you do that, you automatically are biasing it with your opinions in general, even if you attempt to suspend your opinion about what you are investigating. It will still be clouded by your biases.

Of course I may be deluded but you don't know that Baha'u'llah has access to special knowledge because you have not investigated Him.

Haven't I? How do you know this? I have had many conversations with several Bahai members here, and have long lists of quotations I have read, as well as listened to links to videos, as well as done some degree of research of my own. So you are wrong on this. My reasons for believing as I do about him are not because I am unaware or unfamiliar with him.

Among the proofs are that all of His predictions of the future came true.

I am unimpressed whenever religious believers of any religion claim their prophets accurately described the future. Always, without exception that are fallacies of logic that are used to try to match up current events with previous statements, which themselves are typically of a nature as to lend themselves to very creative, and widely diverging "fulfillment" claims, all presenting their evidences. It always come down to a creative sleight of hand with evidences that ones personal biases are willing to overlook because they desire it to be true. Or the statements are really basic "no duh" statements, like "I predict in the future the population of the world will be many."

Also if you investigate the life of Baha'u'llah you see that He was an awesome figure that raised up the spirituality of those around Him.

I've know people like this, and I have those of my friends who say the same of me. I'm not claiming to them I'm infallible, nor do I believe any spiritual teacher is.

He said that He did not read the works of the Bab and yet he quoted from them. You have to decide whether He is a liar or whether His character was such as He wouldn't lie.

There are people in India whole pull apples out of thin air and toss them to people as signs of their gifts. I don't know that if some of those may real miracles, or some of them are just magic tricks. It doesn't matter, because such theatrics do not translate into actual, bonafide spiritual Truth. Truth speaks for Itself, and doesn't need someone pulling a rabbit out of a hat to prove the truth of it. When I see that, it automatically goes into my suspect pile. Why can't the Truth just speak? Why the accompanying magic shows?

Also why would He lie about getting a revelation from God since He was so spiritual.

I would be careful to not think of these things in terms of, "he's either telling the truth, or lying." No. Someone can speak the truth of what they believe, and be fully convinced of it. But ultimately, that is their perception and interpretation of what they experienced. We all do that with all our experiences. It does not make that the one and only possible way to understand it for others, without them being accused of calling that person a liar. I don't doubt he believed what he did. I also recognize that how he believed what he did was a product of who he was, where he was in history, the cuture, the language, the symbol sets, and so forth. His was one perception of Truth. I have another perception of it.

The Baha'i Faith has retained it's unity over the last 150 years.

The Mormon church has been around for quite awhile too and going strong. Does this mean we should believe God lives on a planet near the star Kolob in the Beetlejuice constellation? A well organized institution speaks more about the skills of the administrators, rather than a seal of Divine sanction.

That is where are now. We have no clergy and everybody has the right to understand the Writings for himself, but not to impose their understanding upon others.

Which is interesting. Then how is I have been told by several Baha'i', that your thoughts can never disagree with the writings of Baha'u'llah? Someone somewhere must deciding for you, and others, what they mean. So, I'd call that a subtle, such as "the traditional understanding", but a very, very real imposing of an understanding on you - an understanding you're not allowed to differ from, an understanding that keeps you in line, that keeps the organization together. It must be quite strong a force, indeed.

So I don't accept that people are truly free to question everything. That has always smelled suspect to me, and this is probably why. The social pressure to stay close to the "acceptable" views must be strong. I'd find this horribly stifling for me, and one of the underlying reasons I started this thread to examine. Hmmm, I think this answers a lot for me. Putting God into a religious box is death to me at this point.

I should add, at an earlier point in my life, that box seemed appealing. I suppose only to realize it did not provide the answers I hoped for, in the way I was hoping for them; to just be simply told what is true by authorities outside myself, rather than it being a process of unfolding, which required my participation in that unfolding. Truth becomes a discovery, rather than a memorization of something someone else told you that your should believe in. Belief and knowing are two very different things.

Interesting thoughts to myself just processing aloud. Interesting. It does actually help me understand the appeal of these prophets to others. Ultimately though, you have to find it in yourself, not others.

 

[Windwalker]

When I wrote 'we', I meant observant Jews, not you and I. Our prophets were speaking to their generation. That is part of the definition of a prophet within Judaism.

Do I ever doubt what? I'm not sure what you're asking.

Well, what you just said about the prophet spoke to their generation. Are you allowed to recognize that some of the things they said may have been factual wrong, from the perspectives of our understandings today?

 

[Katzpur]

The Mormon church has been around for quite awhile too and going strong. Does this mean we should believe God lives on a planet near the star Kolob in the Beetlejuice constellation?

God lives in Heaven. At least that's what the Bible says and that's what Mormons believe. Where is Heaven? Who knows. The closest of all the stars to His residence is believed by Mormons to be one known to God as Kolob. Now this is something that non-Mormons find very amusing, but to anyone who believes that Heaven is a real place (which many, many, many Christians do), it should not be much of a stretch to believe that this real place occupies space in proximity to other heavenly bodies. I don't know if you threw in the bit about "Beetlejuice" just to be funny, but it really wasn't. It was really just kind of juvenile.

 

[Windwalker]

God lives in Heaven. At least that's what the Bible says and that's what Mormons believe. Where is Heaven? Who knows. The closest of all the stars to His residence is believed by Mormons to be one known to God as Kolob.

I do find this fascinating to me. I would never consider heaven to be someplace that exists within the observable universe. Heaven always seemed to a "realm" or plane of reality outside or "above" our own. Never as an actual location on a starmap. I have to try to convert my mode of thinking to imagine that.

Now this is something that non-Mormons find very amusing, but to anyone who believes that Heaven is a real place (which many, many, many Christians do), it should not be much of a stretch to believe that this real place occupies space in proximity to other heavenly bodies.

Actually, I have to work at that a bit to make that stretch. Do you envision heaven as a region of space? Is it something with border and boundaries? Don't you believe 3 planes of existence, like the "celestial" being one I recall? Does that exist in this plane of existence, and has actual dimensions that can be measured in terms of light years?

Out of curiosity, when the Bible says Jesus ascended up into heaven, do you imagine that as actually rising up through stratosphere into outer space? I'm not at all being facetious, btw.

I don't know if you threw in the bit about "Beetlejuice" just to be funny, but it really wasn't. It was really just kind of juvenile.

Not being humorous at all. That is based on my recollection of what I heard from a Mormon I used to work with. There's a nebula around Orion which is where Kolab is supposed to be. I don't do juvenile.

 

[Katzpur]

I do find this fascinating to me. I would never consider heaven to be someplace that exists within the observable universe. Heaven always seemed to a "realm" or plane of reality outside or "above" our own. Never as an actual location on a starmap. I have to try to convert my mode of thinking to imagine that.

Did I say it was in "the observable universe"? I don't believe I did. I believe it exists, but that it is a realm outside of our own. We could, in other words, examine every last particle of space in our universe and never find Heaven. Although Mormonism never actually uses the term "multiverse," what we believe pretty closely resembles the concept of a multiverse.

Actually, I have to work at that a bit to make that stretch. Do you envision heaven as a region of space? Is it something with border and boundaries? Don't you believe 3 planes of existence, like the "celestial" being one I recall? Does that exist in this plane of existence, and has actual dimensions that can be measured in terms of light years?

Yes, I do believe it to be a real place with boundaries, but as I said before, I don't believe it is part of the universe we find ourselves in.

Out of curiosity, when the Bible says Jesus ascended up into heaven, do you imagine that as actually rising up through stratosphere into outer space? I'm not at all being facetious, btw.

Yes, I do. That's how the Bible describes it, and I think that's pretty universally accepted by Christians.

Not being humorous at all. That is based on my recollection of what I heard from a Mormon I used to work with. There's a nebula around Orion which is where Kolab is supposed to be. I don't do juvenile.

Okay, sorry I jumped to an inaccurate conclusion, and I'm pleased to know that you don't do juvenile. I suspect that the Mormon you used to work with was playing with you head. I don't believe anybody, even among the LDS Church's highest leadership, has ever even speculated as to where Kolob might be.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

The Baha'i Faith has retained it's unity over the last 150 years.

Forgive me for raising this controversial subject- but I know factually that the Baha'i Faith has sects such as Orthodox Baha'i and others.

These sects usually refer to the main group as Haifan Baha'is. Note: I am not making any claim about the validity of these groups beyond acknowledging they are there. That the Baha'i religion has not remained unified.

This is actually an aspect of the Baha'is headquartered in Haifa that I'm not too impressed with. The Universal House of Justice tends to act like these other sects do not exist. Why couldn't they rather acknowledge these sects as their fellow Baha'is and find ways to work with them?

History dictates in the case of other religions that eventually these kinds of sectarian divisions must have a day of reckoning. That there comes a time where the sects are forced to sit down and discuss their similarities and differences due to external factors like politics, or in the interest of growth.

Is the Haifa Baha'i sect ever going to be ready to do this with other Baha'is? Sit down and have a reasoned discussion of things that unify all Baha'i adherents? It doesn't seem too impressive from an outsider's perspective if not.

Note: I didn't go into the sectarian divides in the Bab's following because I feel like I've said enough to respond to for now.

 

[Windwalker]

Did I say it was in "the observable universe"? I don't believe I did. I believe it exists, but that it is a realm outside of our own. We could, in other words, examine every last particle of space in our universe and never find Heaven. Although Mormonism never actually uses the term "multiverse," what we believe pretty closely resembles the concept of a multiverse.

So Kolab is a star near the planet where God lives, but it is not in this universe, but a separate universe of sorts, much like I would have imagined as a kid when I heard someone talk of heaven. "Up there", but not really like here.

Yes, I do believe it to be a real place with boundaries, but as I said before, I don't believe it is part of the universe we find ourselves in.

Getting back to what I trying to recall thinking as a child about ideas of heaven, I'm not sure I imagined it to have boundaries, like a garden wall and the other side of it belongs to someone else. I always imagined that there wasn't anything else there, just heaven, everywhere. At least that's how I envisioned such things back then.

Yes, I do. That's how the Bible describes it, and I think that's pretty universally accepted by Christians.

Actually, I don't believe that is true. I think most Christians think that Jesus left this plane of existence to the one "beyond" this one, not that he sailed up into outer space, where Elon Musk's Tesla is orbiting as it begins its trip to Mars.

I know that may sound mocking, but it's not if you consider that story as literally factual, that Jesus went up into obit, like a spaceman. Again, I find that hard to shift my mode of thinking to find meaning in. It just sounds, odd.

Okay, sorry I jumped to an inaccurate conclusion, and I'm pleased to know that you don't do juvenile. I suspect that the Mormon you used to work with was playing with you head. I don't believe anybody, even among the LDS Church's highest leadership, has ever even speculated as to where Kolob might be.

I guarantee he wasn't. He was quite genuine, hoping to help me understand God. Like when he said to me in all sincerity, explaining to me how God has a wife, because, "If you have a father and a son, there must be a mother," and that, "The reason God's wife isn't mentioned in the Bible, is because God didn't want his wife's name to be blashemed as His and His Son's is." That is an exact quote. I found that really odd, even at the age I was at that time.

 

[Katzpur]

So Kolab is a star near the planet where God lives, but it is not in this universe, but a separate universe of sorts, much like I would have imagined as a kid when I heard someone talk of heaven. "Up there", but not really like here.

Actually, it's "Kolob," not "Kolab," and yes, I think you seem to understand our belief reasonably well. I do know that our leadership has never, ever speculated on where it might be.

Getting back to what I trying to recall thinking as a child about ideas of heaven, I'm not sure I imagined it to have boundaries, like a garden wall and the other side of it belongs to someone else. I always imagined that there wasn't anything else there, just heaven, everywhere. At least that's how I envisioned such things back then.

Well, that may be the case. I've never given it much thought, actually. I've definitely never pictured a wall around it, so it's entirely logical to assume that "there isn't anything else there, just heaven, everywhere." But I do believe it's a place, and not just a state of mind. And I believe we will be physical beings there. Please note that I didn't say "mortal," because we believe we will be immortal, i.e. unable to suffer from disease, deformity or death ever again. But we do believe we will have corporeal bodies and we will be able to see and embrace our loved ones.

Actually, I don't believe that is true. I think most Christians think that Jesus left this plane of existence to the one "beyond" this one, not that he sailed up into outer space, where Elon Musk's Tesla is orbiting as it begins its trip to Mars.

Maybe I misunderstood you. I was referring to Luke 16:19, which states, "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." Luke 14:51 says, "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven." Being carried up into Heaven or being received into Heaven where He sits on the right hand of God, sounds to me like Jesus was here and then went "upwards" into Heaven. I wouldn't really venture a guess as to whether that was instantaneous or not, but if He is there today, and sits on the right hand of God, then there are two individuals, both of whom occupy space in a real realm, regardless of where it might be.

I know that may sound mocking, but it's not if you consider that story as literally factual, that Jesus went up into obit, like a spaceman. Again, I find that hard to shift my mode of thinking to find meaning in. It just sounds, odd.

LOL! Well, I've never thought of Him in orbit, but as having reached His destination, which was Heaven, which was where His Father was.

I guarantee he wasn't. He was quite genuine, hoping to help me understand God.

Wow! Including the Beetlejuice bit? About all I can say is that some Mormons (and, in fact, some Catholics, some Lutherans, some Jews, some Muslims, etc.) don't like the idea of not having all of the answers. So when asked a question, they do their best to fill in the blanks so as to sound knowledgeable. That's how some pretty far-fetched stories probably began.

Like when he said to me in all sincerity, explaining to me how God has a wife, because, "If you have a father and a son, there must be a mother," and that, "The reason God's wife isn't mentioned in the Bible, is because God didn't want his wife's name to be cursed as His and His Son's is." That is an exact quote. I found that really odd, even at the age I was at that time.

Again, that was kind of conjecture on his part. It is true that we believe that God has a female counter-part, because we do believe God to be a male. As to why she isn't mentioned in the Bible, or even really discussed much in Mormon circles is simply that we have almost no information whatsoever about Her. We simply believe that she exists, and we believe this to be "logical" in light of the fact that we believe God to be the "Father of [our] Spirits," as mentioned in Hebrews 12:9. We don't know why God hasn't revealed more about Her. Some people like to make up their own reasons. I'd prefer to just say, "We don't know." I personally kind of like the idea of the "divine feminine" in my religion. I'm pretty much positive that we're the only Christian denomination who believes in this concept -- a "Mother in Heaven" as well as a "Father in Heaven."

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@Katzpur that reminds me! Do you mind talking about the sectarian divisions in Mormonism some? Rather the LDS church acknowledges them in any way, or dialogues with them about unifying elements of Mormonism. I'd be much appreciative of anything you could tell me about it

 

[Katzpur]

@Katzpur that reminds me! Do you mind talking about the sectarian divisions in Mormonism some? Rather the LDS church acknowledges them in any way, or dialogues with them about unifying elements of Mormonism. I'd be much appreciative of anything you could tell me about it

I don't mind at all, but this particular thread probably isn't the best place to do so. Do you want to start a new one somewhere?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I don't mind at all, but this particular thread probably isn't the best place to do so. Do you want to start a new one somewhere?

Yes I suppose. Hold

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: ↑
They hide behind many smokescreens but the reasons are too obvious to hide since it comes across in their speech. Here are some of the more obvious reasons these people do not like Prophets:

1. Prophets claim to know more about God than they do

Windwalker said: I have no problem in acknowledging the insights of others as beyond mine presently, but I do have a problem with the notion that they are beyond what we ourselves are capable of. To deify these, to "kick them upstairs" removes them from the rest of humanity and states to believers, "You can never become like them".

According to Baha’i beliefs, you can’t EVER be like a Prophet, which we usually refer to as Manifestations of God. God chose them because they are different, they are not like us. I like what loverofhumanity said a while ago about Prophets:

“Now that we have established that there is a God or a Designer or a Creator by the fact we did not bring ourselves into existence from nothingness which is not in existence to be able to perform any action such as creation, we can examine the Words of the Prophets and Messengers to learn more about God.

The Prophets and Messengers have been chosen by God to be Intermediaries between Him and us. Because we do not have the capacity to directly communicate with God, God uses the Prophets to communicate with us.

We are told that the Prophets and Messengers are not ordinary human beings only but were preexistent and not initially born here so in some mystical way they have been endowed with the ability and capacity to relate to us things about God according to our capacity and understanding in the time and age we live in, in each age as we develop and evolve we learn more about God.”
#155 loverofhumanity,

You said: “I have no problem in acknowledging the insights of others as beyond mine presently, but I do have a problem with the notion that they are beyond what we ourselves are capable of.”

That implies that I was right about what I said: “These believers think they can know as much or more than Prophets of God, so obviously they have no use for Prophets,”

Do you think you can be like Baha’u’llah? Can you hear God through the Holy Spirit and then write 15,000 Tablets? Can you write a Book of Laws? Can you establish the foundation for a religion and write a Covenant that passes down succession of authority?

Do you think you can be like Moses or Jesus? Can you do the following?

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273

I consider that a reasonable and completely justifiable complaint, and from a psychological profile, since you bring that up, I would say this deification process of mythologizing the prophets is a projection of a lower fear about oneself. "I can never be like that, so that way when I fail I'm not responsible. God designed it this way...."

So, for the sake of argument, let’s just say that God chose Prophets to be “special” and revealed to them that they were chosen to receive and carry God’s message to humanity, and that there can be no direct intercourse between God and man other than through the Prophets. This is not just a Baha’u’llah thing, Jesus also said it in many places, and it is in the NT:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.​

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,​

The smokescreen is the excuse that they are "above us" in that you can never become that.

That is not a smokescreen. That is just reality according to all these scriptures – Bible, Qur’an and the Writings of Baha’u’llah. If so, you think you know more than the Prophets and you have proven my point, that you do not like Prophets because: 1. Prophets claim to know more about God than you do.

Do you really think that you can be like a Prophet of God?

The 100-dollar question is why you would want to be like a Prophet, or equivalent to a Prophet? The next question is why you think that God should speak directly to you, or to anyone for that matter that God does not choose to speak to? Do you think you can have the benefits of “being a Prophet” without the sacrifice? Jesus gave His life and all the other Prophets suffered for their Cause, to bring the message of God to humanity. Can you do that?

I think these claims are a matter of interpreting ones own experiences. If I thought in terms of "revelation" as they do, of God "declaring" his thoughts to me, rather than in the way I understand the same kinds of experiences which I do have, I could talk like that too. However, I wouldn't, since I use a framework of understanding that is not mythological in nature. I very much have direct experience of God, but I do not imagine myself as a "special mouthpiece" of God.

You said that you have direct experience of God, but how do you think you can possibly know that it is God you are experiencing? You are free to believe that, but why should anyone else believe it? What proof do you have that you have had a direct experience of God? Prophets have proof because they have their life and the scriptures that were attributed to them or that they wrote.

Are you saying that the understanding of Prophets is mythological in nature? On another forum I knew a guy who said that he got revelation from God and that God was a machine up in the sky. The reason we know that he did not get any genuine communication from God is because we know God is not a machine, and we know that because of the scriptures that come through Prophets.

But why does that even matter to anyone else if you did not receive messages that can be used for the good of humanity?

You said you have direct experience of God, but do you think you receive direct communication from God? That is what Prophets claim.

The Prophets are either a mouthpiece of God or they are liars. You can read what Truthseeker9 said on this thread in that regard. If the claims they make are true, then they spoke for God. This is logic 101 stuff.

Trailblazer said: ↑
3. Prophets speak with great authority and reveal teachings and laws they do not want to follow.
Windwalker said: Not at all. "Do not want to follow"? On the contrary, if what they say speaks Truth, then I already am following that, or at the least aspire to inhabit that.

I was not referring to you specifically. I was referring to believers who do not like Prophets generally. Many of them do not like Prophets because they do not like the teachings or laws that they bring. For example, many do not like the laws about homosexuality or fornication. The thing is, if Prophets speak for an All-Knowing and All-Wise God, then they know more than we do about what is good for humanity as a whole, so arguing with them is akin to arguing with God and claiming to know more than God, which is logically impossible. The obvious caveat is that first you have to believe that Prophet actually got a message from God.

What I am trying to say is that many people pick and choose from the teachings and laws what they want to follow even if they believe that the Prophet such as Jesus was sent by God. I think that is arrogant because it is like saying they know more than God and hypocritical because they claim to believe in the Prophet yet they cannot even follow His teachings and laws. If they rather just say they are weak and cannot do what God has enjoined that is another story, because that is humble, but to argue that Jesus never said what He said is like arguing with God.

This is the main issue I have with this elevationism of prophets, it's because folks like you are not allowed to question anything they say, to the point you have to deny your own thinking and own doubts about the very veracity of their claims. It will stimy you as an individual in your spiritual growth, hobble your legs and never let you flex them.

I am allowed to question what they say and I have done so, but I have not found anything that they have said that is not true. I might not understand what they are saying and that lack of understanding can make me question but in the end I realize it is just a weakness on my part, the way it was written or the way I interpreted it. I do not have this problem with anything Bahaullah wrote, but I have had this problem with some things Abdu;l-Baha wrote; but of course he was not a Prophet.

So this "prophets are infallible, appointed by God and we must never question their words or their persons" view can in fact be detrimental, harmful to ones growth because it forces you to deny legitamate concerns about their teachings. It forces a degradation of intellectual, emotional, and spiritual integrity.

Logically speaking, if what is revealed by the Prophets comes from an infallible God, why would we as infallible humans question what they say or write? I can think of only one reason – ego.

If we think we can know as much or more than God, we are in really big trouble and we are spiritually compromised right out the door because we are arrogant. There are no legitimate concerns, only concerns because we disagree. We disagree because we think we know more than they do. How much more plainly can I say it?

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

Now, I'm not sure how you imagine that is a smokescreen to cover anything. It is the opposite. It is blowing holes through the smoke screens of these myths in the interest of pursuing and embracing Truth with all integrity. This is not about ego wanting to hide from truth. that is what those who evelvate the prophets to god-hood status are doing. They are hiding behind not having to face the Truth and claiming they were only following God - when in fact, they were not.

The problem is that you cannot know the Truth from God as well or better than a Prophet can know it. That is the epitome of ego to claim you can know as much or more than a Prophet of God if that Prophet indeed God a message from God... I do not understand why you cannot understand that.

You said: “This is not about ego wanting to hide from truth. that is what those who evelvate the prophets to god-hood status are doing.”

Again, the Prophets are either got a message from God or they did not. If they did then people who believe that they did are not elevating them. If they did not that is another discussion. It is about ego if you insist you can know as much or more than a Prophet of God. So the real question is did they get a message from God? If you do not believe they did then they are not even Prophets so this entire discussion is moot.

How do we go from realizing that anyone of us can be a prophet, to use that term, to we have no use for them? That's a magical connecting line that has no basis in reality. One can certainly admire, honor, respect, learn from, be inspired by prophets, without having to mythologize them an empty yourself of all responsibility!

Who said anything about not being responsible for our actions simply because we believe that Prophets know more than we do? Quite the contrary, it carries a lot of responsibility to understand their teachings and put them into practice using our own innate intelligence, not following some script in some scriptures like a bunch of robots.

So really, what this discussion boils down to is that you believe that anyone of us can be a Prophet and I do not believe that is possible. Unless you can DO the things that I cited above, you cannot BE a Prophet, and unless God chose you to receive and carry His Message to humanity, you cannot be a Prophet, by definition. So by saying you can be a Prophet that is as much as saying that you receive direct communication from God and you can carry that message to humanity.

This seems clear to me that this is a projection of what those who believe in them to that degree are themselves doing, projecting on to those like me what they imagine it would be for them.

We religious people are emptying ourselves of responsibility because we believe in and follow what the Prophets enjoined? How does that equate?

I'll requote myself from post 28. Here are my exact thoughts as to what is going on, and why just now I said what you said about those like me is a projection of what those like yourself are doing:

"[The prophets] become a vehicle for our inner voices to project out of us, in order for us to hear and listen to ourselves, our subconscious, or unconscious voices. That is what music does (I am a musician as well). This is the power of myth, as Joseph Campbell would have expressed. A good myth has legs, as it can be interpreted so many ways, in some many different times and contexts.

But the danger is, when you do not recognize that it is part of you, that the prophets are an extension of you, and you instead take it as wholly external and authoritative over you, even when your own gut is saying "I don't buy that". At that point, you have surrendered your soul to be crushed underfoot by an authoritarian ruler. "Don't trust yourself, trust me!," when said to something you find distressing or wrong on level, is anything but about spiritual growth. It's about fear and hiding under the guise you'll be safe if you don't question it. Now you are projecting the prophet as your own jail-keeper."

A Prophet by definition is not an authoritarian ruler. You cannot know more than a Prophet if He got a message from God, so it makes no sense to trust yourself more than you would trust a Prophet. Did it ever occur to you that your own gut could be wrong and that the Prophet knows more than you know, given He got a direct revelation from God? If the Prophet did not get that than this conversation is moot because it would be like following some ordinary man whom we have no reason to believe knows more than we know. This is logic 101 stuff.

You can bet your sweet bippy I believe that I will be safer if I trust God more than myself. That is the entire purpose of religion! So if Prophets got a message from God then hopefully you can do the math. If you do not like Prophets why not just admit it and stop dancing around the main issue at hand?

Trusting self is about ego. Trusting Prophets is trusting God. Trusting God is about humility.

And further explained in post 29:

"Like anyone, I respect and listen to experts in their fields, but I also listen to other experts and consider options of what I should say I believe in, at that time. However, when you say the prophet is God speaking, you are saying to others, or more importantly to yourself, "Do not question anything!". It is giving yourself the excuse to not think!

And that is the problem when you make something out of this in order to silence your own thoughts and ideas, or any questioning, doubting, etc. That is what I was starting to point out in the post right before this one. This is the problem, is taking natural looking outside ourselves for directions, to surrendering your participation in the process. That is what is the act of cowardice, at some level within ourselves."

Do you see the danger? None of this has anything to we not wanting to follow or believe anything they say. It has to do with not surrendering your intellectual, emotional, and spiritual integrity. It has to do with serving Truth, even if it means saying the prophet was wrong. This is the same problem Creationists fall into, and in my estimation, it's a reflection or result of a spiritual cowardice.

Do you see the danger? Every word that comes from your mouth says “It is all about ME and what I know. YOUR intellectual, emotional, and spiritual integrity... it is all about YOU. That is ego, not spiritual cowardice. I am sorry you cannot see the obvious.

You cite the teachings of the Baha'i that encourages questioning everything, but then in the next breath say you cannot challenge the prophet. How does that work? How does someone who values integrity of Truth in all its forms and expressions fall at the feet of that?

How does that work? Baha’u’llah knew more than we can ever know. Why then would we challenge what He wrote, logically speaking? Truth in all its forms and expressions? How do you think you can know more Truth than God? That is what this all boils down to. If we as Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah has God’s knowledge it would be the epitome of arrogance to question Baha’u’llah because that is akin to questioning God.

I would completely disagree it's because of prophets humanity has survived. These only exist in certain cultures, in certain ages. Many cultures have no such concepts or those in those roles, yet they have done more than just survive, they have thrived! Facts are facts.

Prophets have come to every nation since the beginning of time. That is in the Qur’an. What you have is not factual since you cannot prove that humanity would have survived and thrived without Prophets. But what the Prophets actually did is history and it cannot be refuted. You do not like Prophets because for some reason they are a threat to your sense of self. Otherwise you would not start a thread like this one. I am not going to play psychologist and say I know why. You are hiding behind a smoke screen because on the one hand you say that Prophets are a-okay, but then you say that they are only okay if we can question them. If they are just men who have wisdom and knowledge then of course we can question them, but if they have God’s knowledge then we are questioning God. That is the epitome of arrogance.

And where were these prophets in the Americas prior to Columbus? How did they manage? How did they then manage after they came?

The Manifestations of God come in every age, which is every 500-1000 years, and what they bring is there for everyone in the world, until the next one comes with a new message, new social teachings and laws, and a renewal of the spiritual verities from the former religion.

It is not might intent to say don't listen to the words of great teachers and inspired souls. By all means, do so! But don't hide yourself through the fear of Truth which often asks of you to sacrifice your current beliefs, which may include believing your prophet, like a parent viewed through the eyes of a young child, is seen as infallible.

You said: “But don't hide yourself through the fear of Truth which often asks of you to sacrifice your current beliefs, which may include believing your prophet,”

Fear of Truth? Where does this Truth come from? If it comes from self then to call it Truth is arrogant. We can have truth but we cannot have Truth from God. If you think you have it, go on ahead and follow it, but I do not think I can have it without a Prophet. Why would I want to sacrifice beliefs I know came from God? I would be a fool to do so. Yes I know, but how I know is not something you could understand.

To be clear, Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah was infallible. Nobody asked you or anyone else to believe that, because you are not a Baha’i. We might not perfectly understand everything He wrote, but that is always an issue when humans are interpreting scriptures. However, we also have the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) to guide us.

To see your parents as less than infallible like we did when our thinking was still magical at a young age, does not mean in later life you dishonor and disrespect them. Being realitisic, does not mean you don't respect them. On the contrary, since you can now relate yourself to them, you can admire them better, realizing, they were just like you. And that is all I am and having been saying.

The thing is that if Prophets got a message from God and we did not get a message from God, then Prophets are not just like us. If they did not get a message from God the they are liars and we should not even be following them at all. It is a or b. You cannot have it both ways. You pick.

 

[BilliardsBall]

...and those who tell us what to think so we don't have to.

It seems to me this is the core issue with believing in external authorities. It is a projection, an escape, of not wanting to deal with the difficult issues of navigating our own internal landscapes and finding our way through to Truth. We want others to tell us the way, so we don't have to take responsibility. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it for me," is a form of cowardice.

Agree? Disagree?

Then we haven't interacted personally.

Jesus Christ is the overmind of the Bible, and to know Jesus is to know God's thoughts, a great platform for thought experiments. Almost every Christian I know is a devout thinker.

Don't confuse "I won't think, I'll just blindly repeat scripture" with "Scripture provides a language underpinning philosophy of thought and logic, and God personally invites people to REASON with Him."

 

[Truthseeker]

To me, the true test is not weighing evidences, as with any of these sorts of approaches mistakes of reasoning, or evidences themselves, misinterpretations of what is considered, incorrect information, and a whole host of other things that go into biasing how and what one sees and considers. Rather, for me, when it comes to something on the level of spiritual Truth, it is not a matter for the mind to penetrate with logic arguments, but instead what your heart hears and registers as Truth. Like knows like. If you are using reasoning to find God, you are only hearing your own voice.

Like Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice and follow." He never says, "My sheep follow a path of deductive reasoning and conclude I am the Christ." That's a modern bastardization of spiritual reality, trying to make it a scientific thing. I consider that approach highly, and unfortunately misguided.


I would say yes, set aside opinions as they are a form of reasoning, a conclusion of reason. But don't then say, 'investigate the evidences", because what you end up doing is putting reasoning back into the mix, and the second you do that, you automatically are biasing it with your opinions in general, even if you attempt to suspend your opinion about what you are investigating. It will still be clouded by your biases.


Haven't I? How do you know this? I have had many conversations with several Bahai members here, and have long lists of quotations I have read, as well as listened to links to videos, as well as done some degree of research of my own. So you are wrong on this. My reasons for believing as I do about him are not because I am unaware or unfamiliar with him.


I am unimpressed whenever religious believers of any religion claim their prophets accurately described the future. Always, without exception that are fallacies of logic that are used to try to match up current events with previous statements, which themselves are typically of a nature as to lend themselves to very creative, and widely diverging "fulfillment" claims, all presenting their evidences. It always come down to a creative sleight of hand with evidences that ones personal biases are willing to overlook because they desire it to be true. Or the statements are really basic "no duh" statements, like "I predict in the future the population of the world will be many."


I've know people like this, and I have those of my friends who say the same of me. I'm not claiming to them I'm infallible, nor do I believe any spiritual teacher is.


There are people in India whole pull apples out of thin air and toss them to people as signs of their gifts. I don't know that if some of those may real miracles, or some of them are just magic tricks. It doesn't matter, because such theatrics do not translate into actual, bonafide spiritual Truth. Truth speaks for Itself, and doesn't need someone pulling a rabbit out of a hat to prove the truth of it. When I see that, it automatically goes into my suspect pile. Why can't the Truth just speak? Why the accompanying magic shows?


I would be careful to not think of these things in terms of, "he's either telling the truth, or lying." No. Someone can speak the truth of what they believe, and be fully convinced of it. But ultimately, that is their perception and interpretation of what they experienced. We all do that with all our experiences. It does not make that the one and only possible way to understand it for others, without them being accused of calling that person a liar. I don't doubt he believed what he did. I also recognize that how he believed what he did was a product of who he was, where he was in history, the cuture, the language, the symbol sets, and so forth. His was one perception of Truth. I have another perception of it.


The Mormon church has been around for quite awhile too and going strong. Does this mean we should believe God lives on a planet near the star Kolob in the Beetlejuice constellation? A well organized institution speaks more about the skills of the administrators, rather than a seal of Divine sanction.


Which is interesting. Then how is I have been told by several Baha'i', that your thoughts can never disagree with the writings of Baha'u'llah? Someone somewhere must deciding for you, and others, what they mean. So, I'd call that a subtle, such as "the traditional understanding", but a very, very real imposing of an understanding on you - an understanding you're not allowed to differ from, an understanding that keeps you in line, that keeps the organization together. It must be quite strong a force, indeed.

So I don't accept that people are truly free to question everything. That has always smelled suspect to me, and this is probably why. The social pressure to stay close to the "acceptable" views must be strong. I'd find this horribly stifling for me, and one of the underlying reasons I started this thread to examine. Hmmm, I think this answers a lot for me. Putting God into a religious box is death to me at this point.

I should add, at an earlier point in my life, that box seemed appealing. I suppose only to realize it did not provide the answers I hoped for, in the way I was hoping for them; to just be simply told what is true by authorities outside myself, rather than it being a process of unfolding, which required my participation in that unfolding. Truth becomes a discovery, rather than a memorization of something someone else told you that your should believe in. Belief and knowing are two very different things.

Interesting thoughts to myself just processing aloud. Interesting. It does actually help me understand the appeal of these prophets to others. Ultimately though, you have to find it in yourself, not others.

Truthseeker9 said: ↑

I believe in Baha'u'llah as a Prophet because of the evidence in favor of Him being a Prophet.

To me, the true test is not weighing evidences, as with any of these sorts of approaches mistakes of reasoning, or evidences themselves, misinterpretations of what is considered, incorrect information, and a whole host of other things that go into biasing how and what one sees and considers. Rather, for me, when it comes to something on the level of spiritual Truth, it is not a matter for the mind to penetrate with logic arguments, but instead what your heart hears and registers as Truth. Like knows like. If you are using reasoning to find God, you are only hearing your own voice.

Like Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice and follow." He never says, "My sheep follow a path of deductive reasoning and conclude I am the Christ." That's a modern bastardization of spiritual reality, trying to make it a scientific thing. I consider that approach highly, and unfortunately misguided.

There is some reasoning involved, but in the end, you hear His voice or not as Christ said. I accepted Baha'u'llah first because of my response to
Baha'u'llah's words. The reasoning came later. When I say evidence, I mean primarily the Word of God and our response to it.


Truthseeker9 said: ↑

Also why would He lie about getting a revelation from God since He was so spiritual.

I would be careful to not think of these things in terms of, "he's either telling the truth, or lying." No. Someone can speak the truth of what they believe, and be fully convinced of it. But ultimately, that is their perception and interpretation of what they experienced. We all do that with all our experiences. It does not make that the one and only possible way to understand it for others, without them being accused of calling that person a liar. I don't doubt he believed what he did. I also recognize that how he believed what he did was a product of who he was, where he was in history, the cuture, the language, the symbol sets, and so forth. His was one perception of Truth. I have another perception of it.

But it's impossible for Him to believe that and be mistaken. That's what I was getting at when I mentioned that He knew the Revelation of the Bab without reading it. There are other reasons too. But I guess it is impossible to reach you. You have an ideology that can't be penetrated.

Which is interesting. Then how is I have been told by several Baha'i', that your thoughts can never disagree with the writings of Baha'u'llah? Someone somewhere must deciding for you, and others, what they mean.

We shouldn't disagree with the Writings of Baha'u'llah, but we all have to interpret it differently. It's the interpretation I'm talking about.

I'm sorry that I tried to force this on you. I should have known better. You will learn the truth in the next world.