Unity within Religious Groups

[Exaltist Ethan]

The Baha'i Faith is a very interesting religion. It allows its members to do virtually anything they want and remain a Baha'i. If you are gay and want to have a gay marriage, you cannot have a gay Baha'i marriage, but you can get married the secular way if your government permits it. There's a lot list of things Baha'is aren't supposed to do. Smoke, drink alcohol, gamble, even joining a political party is a big no-no from the religion. However, all of these things are NOT considered what is called "covenant-breaking" in the religion. That means, even though it is looked negatively from God's point of view, you can do all of these things and still remain a Baha'i.

So what is covenant-breaking in the Baha'i Faith? The only absolutely forbidden act in the Baha'i Faith is creating a religion that is considered a denomination of the Baha'i Faith. In fact, if you try to create a sect of the Baha'i Faith instead of joining its main religion, you are basically ignored and treated like you don't exist from the other Baha'is. It is because of this strict policy that the Baha'i Faith, which has at least five million adherents, has no divisions in the religion. Yes, some people have tried to make other denominations in the religion - Orthodox Baha'is and Unitarian Baha'is come into mind. However, the amount of people in these sectarian religions is a few hundred people at best.

So the question then comes down to: is the Baha'i Faith doing the right thing by trying everybody who is involved in this religion to be part of the overwhelming size of the main group? Upon research I found that Orthodox Baha'is actually call the main wing of the religion "Haifa Baha'is" as if it were its own denomination by itself. Although these divisions do exist, they don't seem to be much different from the main group.

Orthodox Baha'is don't believe in the divinity of Abdul Baha, whereas the Unitarian Baha'is, also known as the Beha'is, was started by one of Baha'u'llah's other children. According to normal Baha'is, this person actually tried to kill Abdul Baha to gain power over the religion. Unitarian Baha'is are interesting because they believe one should find religious ground from the UUs. What's even more interesting is that even though Unitarian Baha'is is a taboo subject from Baha'is, it is fully possible and permittable to be both Unitarian Universalist and a Baha'i, which I've known a few. You just can't officially combine the new groups into its own separate religion from the Baha'is.

Over 99% of Baha'is are part of the main group due to this covenant-breaking provision of the religion. What's also interesting, though, is that Islam has a very similar rule about this - but for the Baha'i Faith. Although many Baha'is who join the Faith were never Muslim, the Baha'i Faith is considered a political apostacy religion and is forbidden to join in Muslim and Sharia Law countries throughout the Middle East. So in a very real way, Islam treats Baha'is similarly to how Baha'is treat the covenant-breakers. The difference however is, Baha'is may cut ties from you if you try to do this, but they won't cause any actual conflict or otherwise actually hurt the people who have tried to do this.

This is a very touchy subject for the Baha'i Faith. I've been part of the Baha'i Faith Discord server and if there is any promotion for covenant-breaking it is immediately deleted. I've seen this censorship first hand. So in this way, the Baha'i Faith is similar to Islam in this fashion. But another interesting thing is that there are religions who literally take the complete opposite approach to this. The most famous example of this is Christianity. There are literally hundreds of ecclesiastical traditions and yes, thousands of denominations inside those traditions, all practicing Christianity in their own ways.

In fact, this sectarianism inside the Christian religion has caused some religions to leave Christianity entirely, like the Unitarian Universalist religion. Others have distanced themselves from the core of Christianity but still remain inside of it, like various groups inside the Quaker religion. And then there are debates of what actually makes a Christian and what groups represent Christianity, as many Christians distance themselves from Jehovah Witnesses and the Latter-Day Saints church.

And Islam itself seems to fall somewhere in the middle of this. Yes, Islam does have various denominations - the three largest being Shi'a, Sunni and Sufis, but they are nowhere near the level of sectarianism as Christianity is as a whole. In fact, there was a whole movement in Christianity trying to create "Christian" sects inside of Christianity, due to how many people felt like it was blasphemy to call yourself anything different as a Christian.

So, the debate that I want to bring up here is: who does it right - the Baha'is and their internal unity of Faith, or Christianity, who has thousands of ways to practice the same religion? The Baha'is themselves will become sectarian themselves, as their prophet Baha'u'llah himself has said there will be a new religion that rises from the Baha'is. However, this is not supposed to happen for a thousand years after his death, and since this will be apparent to all Baha'is during that future, all Baha'is at that time are supposed to accept this new incarnation of God when He comes.

Despite this prophecy by Baha'u'llah, I believe there will be internal arguments inside of the religion as to who will take that mantel, to replace Baha'u'llah as the next Messenger of God for them. And I believe many people inside the Baha'i Faith will remain as Baha'is even after a sizable portion of them accept the next prophet.

TL;DR - What are your opinions regarding the lack of denominations in the Baha'i Faith, and the complete widespread of them in Christianity? Is it better to have many different sects who believe in the same general message, or should there be more unity among people in the same religion? What are your general feelings about denomination differences within religions as a whole?

I myself take no view on this, but I'm looking forward to what people have to say about this. This is inside debates so please feel free to share your opinion and debate with others on this subject.

 

[sun rise]

TL;DR - What are your opinions regarding the lack of denominations in the Baha'i Faith, and the complete widespread of them in Christianity? Is it better to have many different sects who believe in the same general message, or should there be more unity among people in the same religion? What are your general feelings about denomination differences within religions as a whole?

I don't see any inherent right and wrong. There are historical reasons why the single Catholic Church split into various Protestant groups. There is a big historical reason why Islam split into mostly two groups. If those historical reasons existed in the Baha'i today, that religion would split into a couple of groups each believing it was the true faith and the other was heretical.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I don't see any inherent right and wrong. There are historical reasons why the single Catholic Church split into various Protestant groups. There is a big historical reason why Islam split into mostly two groups. If those historical reasons existed in the Baha'i today, that religion would split into a couple of groups each believing it was the true faith and the other was heretical.

If you read the rest of my thread you'd know that in fact there were historical reasons that there were separations in the Baha'is. Some Baha'is didn't like Abdul Baha's leadership, or chose to follow some someone else other than the main group. I agree with you that had the religion truly been split, the other ones would consider each other heretical, however, the only reason why they don't exist is because of Baha'is strict enforcement of its unity principle in religion. It doesn't want to end up like Christianity where everybody thinks every other church is going to Hell for having slightly different beliefs than each other.

Also, I would contend that a majority of Christians, especially those found in more liberal sects, but some in conservative wings too, don't really care which denomination you practice so long as you are Christian. I've never been a Christian but I've been to many churches and from what I found out about them is that they typically use the word "Christian" to describe themselves rather than the specific sect of Christianity they practice. Not all churches will even say which brand of Christianity they are unless you actually go to a sermon. I'm seeing a lot of Christian content on YouTube that distance themselves from what is considered "non-Christian" like JW and LDS but otherwise accepts all the other regular Protestant denominations, and usually Catholicism too, as the "right" way to practice the religion.

In fact, Christianity as a whole could be viewed a lot less cult-like because of this, because it is so widespread, and you have so many options for prayer and worship, Christians themselves have their own way they can practice it and be part of the larger community within Christianity and their denomination as a whole. Baha'is seem to be very focused on one path, and it is a path you must follow to partake in the religion. I get the fact there are billions of Christians whereas there is only a few million Baha'is, but I don't think there is necessary a "right" or "wrong" way to practice either religion. Just follow your convictions and see where the communities lead you to. It shouldn't be that difficult either way.

 

[Trailblazer]

TL;DR - What are your opinions regarding the lack of denominations in the Baha'i Faith, and the complete widespread of them in Christianity? Is it better to have many different sects who believe in the same general message, or should there be more unity among people in the same religion? What are your general feelings about denomination differences within religions as a whole?

I myself take no view on this, but I'm looking forward to what people have to say about this. This is inside debates so please feel free to share your opinion and debate with others on this subject.

There is only one Baha'i Faith. There are no denominations of the Bahai Faith. These covenant-breaker groups are not Baha'is, they are fakes, people who broke away from the real Baha'i Faith and started their own religion simply because of their own egos. It makes me so sick I can barely breathe.

Baha'is who live under the Covenant of Baha'u'llah are the only real Baha'is. In His will, Baha'u'llah made it perfectly clear what the lines of succession would be after He died. Anyone who goes against this is a covenant-breaker, not a Baha'i. I do not care how similar they sound to the real Baha'is. That is exactly what they want to do, sound just like another religion called the Baha'i Faith. By creating divisions, they are striking at the very root of the Faith, which is unity. They are evil.

Covenant-breaker is a term used in the Baháʼí Faith to refer to a person who has been excommunicated from the Baháʼí community for breaking the Covenant of Baháʼu'lláh, meaning actively promoting schism in the religion or otherwise opposing the legitimacy of the chain of succession of leadership.[1][2][3] Excommunication among Baháʼís is rare and not used for transgressions of community standards, intellectual dissent, or conversion to other religions.[2][4] Instead, it is the most severe punishment, reserved for suppressing organized dissent that threatens the unity of believers.[5]​

​

Currently, the Universal House of Justice has the sole authority to declare a person a Covenant-breaker,[2][6] and once identified, all Baháʼís are expected to shun them, even if they are family members.[5] According to ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, Covenant-breaking is a contagious disease.[7] The Baháʼí writings forbid association with Covenant-breakers and Baháʼís are urged to avoid their literature, thus providing an exception to the Baháʼí principle of independent investigation of truth. Most Baháʼís are unaware of the small Baháʼí divisions that exist.[8]​

​

Covenant-breaker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Trailblazer]

Despite this prophecy by Baha'u'llah, I believe there will be internal arguments inside of the religion as to who will take that mantel, to replace Baha'u'llah as the next Messenger of God for them. And I believe many people inside the Baha'i Faith will remain as Baha'is even after a sizable portion of them accept the next prophet.

Even if they do not accept the next Prophet/Messenger of God and remain Baha'is that will not make it right. We are told that after 1000 years another Messenger will come and we are not told to cling to the previous Messenger! That would be making the same mistake that Jews, Christians and Muslims have made, when they rejected the Messengers that came after theirs.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

There is only one Baha'i Faith. There are no denominations of the Bahai Faith. These covenant-breaker groups are not Baha'is, they are fakes, people who broke away from the real Baha'i Faith and started their own religion simply because of their own egos. It makes me so sick I can barely breathe.

Baha'is who live under the Covenant of Baha'u'llah are the only real Baha'is. In His will, Baha'u'llah made it perfectly clear what the lines of succession would be after He died. Anyone who goes against this is a covenant-breaker, not a Baha'i. I do not care how similar they sound to the real Baha'is. That is exactly what they want to do, sound just like another religion called the Baha'i Faith. By creating divisions, they are striking at the very root of the Faith, which is unity. They are evil.

Covenant-breaker is a term used in the Baháʼí Faith to refer to a person who has been excommunicated from the Baháʼí community for breaking the Covenant of Baháʼu'lláh, meaning actively promoting schism in the religion or otherwise opposing the legitimacy of the chain of succession of leadership.[1][2][3] Excommunication among Baháʼís is rare and not used for transgressions of community standards, intellectual dissent, or conversion to other religions.[2][4] Instead, it is the most severe punishment, reserved for suppressing organized dissent that threatens the unity of believers.[5]​

​

Currently, the Universal House of Justice has the sole authority to declare a person a Covenant-breaker,[2][6] and once identified, all Baháʼís are expected to shun them, even if they are family members.[5] According to ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, Covenant-breaking is a contagious disease.[7] The Baháʼí writings forbid association with Covenant-breakers and Baháʼís are urged to avoid their literature, thus providing an exception to the Baháʼí principle of independent investigation of truth. Most Baháʼís are unaware of the small Baháʼí divisions that exist.[8]​

​

Covenant-breaker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So let me ask you Trailblazer, if there was a new religion, even newer than the Baha'i Faith, and they said they were inspired by the Baha'i Faith, but didn't call themselves Baha'is and did not actively try to break the covenant of that religion, would they be considered covenant breakers at that point? In other words, if there was another, newer religion that copied various ideas of your religion but otherwise called it something else, would that be breaking the unity of your religion? And if not, could you see how the unity of religion can be broken without officially causing a schism within your religion?

 

[mangalavara]

What are your opinions regarding the lack of denominations in the Baha'i Faith, and the complete widespread of them in Christianity?

I think the lack of denominations within the Baha’i Faith is good insofar as it apparently does not result in Baha’is branding each other as heretics and condemning each other to everlasting suffering. Additionally, I think the myriad of denominations in Christianity is bad to the extent that many Christians don’t accept each other as Christians regardless of sincere faith and spiritual life.

Is it better to have many different sects who believe in the same general message, or should there be more unity among people in the same religion?

I think that having many different sects is better than having a single institution and uniformity. With different sects, there are different emphases, rituals, philosophies, theologies, sacred personalities, and sometimes even deities. From my perspective, the existence of different sects is good because human beings naturally have different temperaments, inclinations, opinions, and spiritual experiences even within the same religion.

What are your general feelings about denomination differences within religions as a whole?

Looking at what I posted above, I believe that denominational differences within religion as a whole is good because human beings, even if they subscribe to the same religion, naturally have different inclinations and ideas. As a Hindu, I think that having a single institution with absolute unity and uniformity is unideal. It is unideal because it does not accept diversity of spirituality, philosophy, ritual, etc. There is something for every kind of person in Hinduism. With an acceptance of variety within Hinduism, adherents are able to be genuine pluralists, not only with respect to other Hindus but also with respect to people of other religions.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Additionally, I think the myriad of denominations in Christianity is bad to the extent that many Christians don’t accept each other as Christians regardless of sincere faith and spiritual life.

I think if you asked many Christians at least 75% of them would say all Christians are going to Heaven. Christianity is a large group and many religions are part of that. The question then comes down to what makes a true Christian, and if JW, LDS and other groups are truly considered Christian. Of course, with the sectarian views Christianity has developed, there have been a myriad of different translations of the Bible amongst different groups of people.

It's interesting how Christianity and Hinduism developed. It's much easier to define a Christian than it is to define a Hindu. But as far as I know, while the theology of Hinduism has much variety, there is a lot less animosity between Hindus in general it seems. I'm going to say this right now: I do not understand the Hindu religion. I've tried, and I've tried, and to me, it's as if I'm learning an entirely different language and culture. Since English and Christianity go together in America, it is much easier to understand it and the differences those religions hold. I know that Advaita Vedanta is the pantheist school of Hinduism and that's about it. I've downloaded the scriptures before and couldn't fully understand them, even though they were in English. I also know that Brahman is considered to be God by many Hindus too. I'm sure many people from India feel the same way I feel about Hinduism but for Christianity instead.

I agree with what you said later in your post. I think denominationalism should mostly be encouraged in religions that have many followers. However, the Baha'i has millions whereas Christianity and Hinduism has billions. I imagine that no matter how much unity Baha'u'llah encouraged in the religion, if there were billions of Baha'is, sectarian beliefs would have to occur at that point. In fact, I hate to say this based on what @Trailblazer said, but... maybe the reason why there are so many more Christians and Hindus is exactly that. There's so many different paths that lead the same way either way, but the Baha'i Faith is just one path, one way and I think that deters a lot of people who would otherwise want to join the Baha'i Faith but would be cast out and considered heretical by other Baha'is just based on the fact on how they worship God.

Baha'is have the strict rule of their own religion regarding covenant breaking, but what it comes to other monotheistic religions, they are inclusive. In fact, their program Ocean even has scriptures from the LDS faith, when many Christians don't consider them actually Christian. I guess Baha'u'llah was focused on the unity of His religion but not the unity of religion as a whole.

 

[Trailblazer]

So let me ask you Trailblazer, if there was a new religion, even newer than the Baha'i Faith, and they said they were inspired by the Baha'i Faith, but didn't call themselves Baha'is and did not actively try to break the covenant of that religion, would they be considered covenant breakers at that point? In other words, if there was another, newer religion that copied various ideas of your religion but otherwise called it something else, would that be breaking the unity of your religion? And if not, could you see how the unity of religion can be broken without officially causing a schism within the religion?

If they said (a) they were a new religion and (b) they were inspired by the Baha'i Faith, even if they did not call themselves Baha'is, then they would be considered a false religion. Permit me to explain why. The reason they would be considered false is because Baha'u'llah made it perfectly clear that the Baha'i Faith is the religion for this age, which will last no less than 1000 years (from 1852 AD).

Baha'u'llah stated unequivocally that anyone who came before 2852 AD would be considered a false prophet, so that means that a new religion cannot be established before that date.

62. Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years # 37​

​

The Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh will last until the coming of the next Manifestation of God, Whose advent will not take place before at least “a full thousand years” will have elapsed. Bahá’u’lláh cautions against ascribing to “this verse” anything other than its “obvious meaning”, and in one of His Tablets, He specifies that “each year” of this thousand year period consists of “twelve months according to the Qur’án, and of nineteen months of nineteen days each, according to the Bayán”.​

​

The intimation of His Revelation to Bahá’u’lláh in the Síyáh-Chál of Ṭihrán, in October 1852, marks the birth of His Prophetic Mission and hence the commencement of the one thousand years or more that must elapse before the appearance of the next Manifestation of God.​

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 195-196​

​

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather, follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise. Erelong shall clamorous voices be raised in most lands. Shun them, O My people, and follow not the iniquitous and evil-hearted. This is that of which We gave you forewarning when We were dwelling in ‘Iráq, then later while in the Land of Mystery, and now from this Resplendent Spot.”​

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 32​

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Baha'u'llah stated unequivocally that anyone who came before 2852 AD would be considered a false prophet, so that means that a new religion cannot be established before that date.

Does the Baha'i Faith also have dates for religions that pre-date their religion too? I would be interested to see which religions were considered valid at what dates to them. So far I know that Baha'i is 1852-2852 AD. Islam started in 610 AD. Babism started in 1844 AD. So Islam was valid between 610-1844 AD, Babism was valid between 1844-1852 AD, and the Baha'i Faith after that. Is there dates for religions that pre-date Islam? Was Christianity the valid religion before Islam?

So many questions I have about your very elaborate religion...

 

[Trailblazer]

I imagine that no matter how much unity Baha'u'llah encouraged in the religion, if there were billions of Baha'is, sectarian beliefs would have to occur at that point. In fact, I hate to say this based on what @Trailblazer said, but... maybe the reason why there are so many more Christians and Hindus is exactly that.

If there were billions of Baha'is probably more disagreements would arise between Baha'is, since there would be more people to disagree, but I do not believe that sectarian beliefs would occur.

The obvious reason why there are so many more Christians and Hindus than Baha'is is because those religions have had so much more time to grow larger. Hinduism is 5000 years old, the oldest religion in the world, and Christianity is 2000 years old. Although it certainly does not look like that now, I believe that in 1000 years the world will be predominantly Baha'is. That was promised by Baha'u'llah but He did not say when it would occur.

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth. Place, in all circumstances, Thy whole trust in Thy Lord, and fix Thy gaze upon Him, and turn away from all them that repudiate His truth. Let God, Thy Lord, be Thy sufficing succorer and helper. We have pledged Ourselves to secure Thy triumph upon earth and to exalt Our Cause above all men, though no king be found who would turn his face towards Thee.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 248-249​

 

[Trailblazer]

Does the Baha'i Faith also have dates for religions that pre-date their religion too? I would be interested to see which religions were considered valid at what dates to them. So far I know that Baha'i is 1852-2852 AD. Islam started in 610 AD. Babism started in 1844 AD. So Islam was valid between 610-1844 AD, Babism was valid between 1844-1852 AD, and the Baha'i Faith after that. Is there dates for religions that pre-date Islam? Was Christianity the valid religion before Islam?

So many questions I have about your very elaborate religion...

I do not have anything exact right now but maybe my bff Duane @Truthseeker can help us out, since he is very knowledgeable on all things Baha'i.
Meanwhile, I do have this chart from Baha'iTeachings.org.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I do not have anything exact right now but maybe my bff Duane @Truthseeker can help us out, since he is very knowledgeable on all things Baha'i.
Meanwhile, I do have this chart from Baha'iTeachings.org.

View attachment 78515

I find it a bit odd that Baha (the Baha'i God) created two people with The Bab and Baha'u'llah around the same time to carry His will, but I guess God knew that The Bab was going to he was going to be martyred and Baha'u'llah carried on his mission. I investigated The Bab's teachings. Baha'u'llah kind of stole a lot of his ideas under what was considered Babism and became the Baha'i Faith. I've also heard that The Bab declared himself a prophet for a religion that would last longer than eight years... Compare to the spread of Islam, Babism and the Baha'i Faith is probably viewed as nothing more than a cancer festing in the society of Arab nations.

It's funny that although Babism was the beginning of the Baha'i Faith, neither Abdul Baha nor Shoghi Effendi translated The Bayan into English. I've always wanted to own that book physically in English and I would pay money to do so. I consider that book to be as important to the Baha'i Faith as the Kitab-i-Aqdas because without the Bayan, and without The Bab being martyred Baha'u'llah never would have continued the lineage. I wonder, that had The Bab never been killed, if all the Baha'is on this server would have been Babis instead. I understand that the Babis used more direct language to express their view and belief in God, and was viewed more radically than Baha'is.

Over time Abdul Baha led various reforms to modernize the religion, and Shoghi Effendi did more reforms - including translating the sacred scriptures to English. I'm actually a bit more interested in The Bab than either the Baha'i Faith or Baha'u'llah, because everything started with him, and how The Bab describes God is a bit different than any other way I've heard God being described, with the little bit of the Bayan being translated into English. I know the numbers of both Babis and other sects of the Baha'is are extremely low, but I also know that Babism is still considered a legitimate religion to Baha'is because at one point it was God's word, before Baha'u'llah came to fulfill that mission.

It's funny how whenever I talk to Baha'is they hype scripture from Baha'u'llah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi, but The Bab, which was the start of all of this, is still mostly a mystery, even to most Baha'is. Because Babism only lasted a few years there are only a few hundred of them, and honestly, from what I've seen, Baha'is steal most of the content from The Bab and Babism, and, use ways to modernize and streamline his ideas to a wider audience. At this point I honestly am more interested in Babis than I am in the Baha'i Faith, as The Bab had such a unique way of understanding and viewing God that I've never truly heard from or understood from anyone else. It's really sad what ended up happening to him.

 

[Trailblazer]

I find it a bit odd that Baha (the Baha'i God) created two people with The Bab and Baha'u'llah around the same time to carry His will, but I guess God knew that The Bab was going to he was going to be martyred and Baha'u'llah carried on his mission. I investigated The Bab's teachings. Baha'u'llah kind of stole a lot of his ideas under what was considered Babism and became the Baha'i Faith. I've also heard that The Bab declared himself a prophet for a religion that would last longer than eight years... Compare to the spread of Islam, Babism and the Baha'i Faith is probably viewed as nothing more than a cancer festing in the society of Arab nations.

It's funny that although Babism was the beginning of the Baha'i Faith, neither Abdul Baha nor Shoghi Effendi translated The Bayan into English. I've always wanted to own that book physically in English and I would pay money to do so. I consider that book to be as important to the Baha'i Faith as the Kitab-i-Aqdas because without the Bayan, and without The Bab being martyred Baha'u'llah never would have continued the lineage. I wonder, that had The Bab never been killed, if all the Baha'is on this server would have been Babis instead. I understand that the Babis used more direct language to express their view and belief in God, and was viewed more radically than Baha'is.

Over time Abdul Baha led various reforms to modernize the religion, and Shoghi Effendi did more reforms - including translating the sacred scriptures to English. I'm actually a bit more interested in The Bab than either the Baha'i Faith or Baha'u'llah, because everything started with him, and how The Bab describes God is a bit different than any other way I've heard God being described, with the little bit of the Bayan being translated into English. I know the numbers of both Babis and other sects of the Baha'is are extremely low, but I also know that Babism is still considered a legitimate religion to Baha'is because at one point it was God's word, before Baha'u'llah came to fulfill that mission.

It's funny how whenever I talk to Baha'is they hype scripture from Baha'u'llah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi, but The Bab, which was the start of all of this, is still mostly a mystery, even to most Baha'is. Because Babism only lasted a few years there are only a few hundred of them, and honestly, from what I've seen, Baha'is steal most of the content from The Bab and Babism, and, use ways to modernize and streamline his ideas to a wider audience. At this point I honestly am more interested in Babis than I am in the Baha'i Faith, as The Bab had such a unique way of understanding and viewing God that I've never truly heard from or understood from anyone else. It's really sad what ended up happening to him.

I have a lot to say about this but I will have to get back you you as soon as I have the time and courage!
Meanwhile, I asked @Truthseeker to jump in because I was afraid I would botch the job. He knows so much more about Baha'i history than I do, I know very little.

For now though I have to say how much I love the Bab. That doesn't mean I do not love Baha'u'llah, but I have a special place in my heart for the Bab and I love what little of His Writings have been translated into English and I love His prayers.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Exaltist Ethan

I just fixed all those typos in the post above.... I can hardly believe how many I made, but it's been a long week.

 

[Truthseeker]

Baha'u'llah kind of stole a lot of his ideas under what was considered Babism and became the Baha'i Faith. I've also heard that The Bab declared himself a prophet for a religion that would last longer than eight years...

Yes the Bab did originate a lot of the ideas that Baha'u'llah talked about later in more detail. Here are some passages quoted by the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith about how long before He Whom God Shall Make Manifest would appear:

"In the year nine," He, referring to the date of the advent of the promised Revelation, has explicitly written, "ye shall attain unto all good." "In the year nine, ye will attain unto the presence of God." And again: "After Hin (68) a Cause shall be given unto you which ye shall come to know." "Ere nine will have elapsed from the inception of this Cause," He more particularly has stated, "the realities of the created things will not be made manifest. All that thou hast as yet seen is but the stage from the moist germ until We clothed it with flesh. Be patient, until thou beholdest a new creation. Say: 'Blessed, therefore, be God, the most excellent of Makers!'" "Wait thou," is His statement to Azim, "until nine will have elapsed from the time of the Bayan. Then exclaim: 'Blessed, therefore, be God, the most excellent of Makers!'" "Be attentive," He, referring in a remarkable passage to the year nineteen, has admonished, "from the inception of the Revelation till the number of Vahid (19)." "The Lord of the Day of Reckoning," He, even more explicitly, has stated, "will be manifested at the end of Vahid (19) and the beginning of eighty (1280 A.H.)." "Were He to appear this very moment," He, in His eagerness to insure that the proximity of the promised Revelation should not withhold men from the Promised One, has revealed, "I would be the first to adore Him, and the first to bow down before Him."
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 29)

It was the year nine when Baha'u'llah started receiving His Revelation, but it was not until the year 19 that He declared that He was
Him Whom God shall make manifest

It's funny that although Babism was the beginning of the Baha'i Faith, neither Abdul Baha nor Shoghi Effendi translated The Bayan into English. I've always wanted to own that book physically in English and I would pay money to do so. I consider that book to be as important to the Baha'i Faith as the Kitab-i-Aqdas because without the Bayan, and without The Bab being martyred Baha'u'llah never would have continued the lineage. I wonder, that had The Bab never been killed, if all the Baha'is on this server would have been Babis instead. I understand that the Babis used more direct language to express their view and belief in God, and was viewed more radically than Baha'is.

What the Bab revealed was only meant to guide the believers for a short amount of time, and thus it was more heavily addressed to the Shi'i Muslim culture. Books like the Bayan are more understandable to those embedded in that culture. The Bab's first book the Qayyumu'l-Asma or commentary on the Sura of Joseph especially was meant for learned Shayki Muslims, and that was the secret of the success of attracting the first believers.

I hope I answered some of your questions.

 

[Truthseeker]

do not have anything exact right now but maybe my bff Duane @Truthseeker can help us out, since he is very knowledgeable on all things Baha'i.
Meanwhile, I do have this chart from Baha'iTeachings.org.

Well, you do know that is just one opinion about those dates. It is uncertain when Zoroaster appeared, sometime between 700 B.C. and 1500 B.C. I took a Zoroastrian course that discussed that. I have no idea when Krishna appeared, and he is lost in the mists of time. Who knows when He appeared? Frankly, the date for Abraham looks way off to me. My impression is that it was closer to 2000 B.C., but who knows, it could have been earlier, but 5000 B.C.?

 

[PearlSeeker]

TL;DR - What are your opinions regarding the lack of denominations in the Baha'i Faith, and the complete widespread of them in Christianity? Is it better to have many different sects who believe in the same general message, or should there be more unity among people in the same religion? What are your general feelings about denomination differences within religions as a whole?

Interesting question. I think open minded variety is better. As long as the groups don't condemn each other. And right action should be more important than correct beliefs (orthopraxy over orthodoxy).

 

[Truthseeker]

I think open minded variety is better. As long as the groups don't condemn each other. And right action should be more important than correct beliefs (orthopraxy over orthodoxy).

You don't have to have a lot of different denominations in a religion for them to be open minded. I do agree that right actions are more important. That goes for between religions also. It doesn't matter very much as long as the adherents act morally.