What if we accepted each others Religion?

[Vinayaka]

That would because he is not a Messenger. Did you read how he became what he claimed to be? That is all I have to say on that, as all get to make their own choice.

He definitely liked the Baha'i teachings, he embraced some core principles.

Regards Tony

You're talking past tense. AFAIK, his group is alive and well, although I could be wrong.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The point is not the intention of an individual believer. I am sure that many Christian pastors, Muslim imams or Buddhist monks who went to different parts of the world to spread the faith had good intentions and never wanted worldly power but only share their new message from God (as they believed). But the very model is exclusivist by its very nature.
By definition if your model of God-Man relationship is that God sends periodic new editions of his revelations in the hands of newly elected semi divine messengers...then by definition the new editions make the older ones obsolete whom YOU exclude by saying they have been corrupted and what not. This is an exclusivist replacement model at its very core and it can only create violence and conflict as the older tradition declare the new one heretical and false by necessity so as not to get replaced. What you have then... inevitably is competition and conflict. Religion's version of Darwinism. Your religion follows the same tradition and hence is part of the problem only. It cannot be the solution by virtue of how it has been conceived by your founders.
Sorry. It's the truth as far as I see it.

My understanding is that such a scenario is progressive not exclusive.

Christ could not have given teachings for world unity in His time as neither the world was fully discovered nor had world communications been invented. But in this age now that humanity has scientifically grown to become as one neighbourhood, God has sent Baha’u’llah with teachings to unite mankind. To love all mankind complements and broadens Christ’s teaching of loving one’s neighbour making the vision universal.

And laws such as stoning and crucifying have been replaced with more humanitarian laws because in the past God’s Revelation appeared to Moses and Muhammad in the desert where there was no prisons, police, courts, judges or rehabilitation centres so laws had to be harsh . But in this day we have all these facilities to reeducate the offender so laws have changed in this age.

 

[Vinayaka]

My understanding is that such a scenario is progressive not exclusive.

Christ could not have given teachings for world unity in His time as neither the world was fully discovered nor had world communications been invented. But in this age now that humanity has scientifically grown to become as one neighbourhood, God has sent Baha’u’llah with teachings to unite mankind. To love all mankind complements and broadens Christ’s teaching of loving one’s neighbour making the vision universal.

And laws such as stoning and crucifying have been replaced with more humanitarian laws because in the past God’s Revelation appeared to Moses and Muhammad in the desert where there was no prisons, police, courts, judges or rehabilitation centres so laws had to be harsh . But in this day we have all these facilities to reeducate the offender so laws have changed in this age.

The same could be said for buying a new car. I 'progressed' to a new car. Do you keep the old one hanging around?

By re-educate, do you include conversion therapy, the practice some Baha'is still advocate, but is illegal in modern countries? It is more humane than stoning for sure.

 

[Trailblazer]

By definition if your model of God-Man relationship is that God sends periodic new editions of his revelations in the hands of newly elected semi divine messengers...then by definition the new editions make the older ones obsolete whom YOU exclude by saying they have been corrupted and what not.

Baha'is do not believe that the Bahai Faith has 'replaced' the older religions. We only believe that the former religious 'Dispensations' have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, upholds uncompromisingly the eternal verities they enshrine, recognizes firmly and absolutely the Divine origin of their Authors, preserves inviolate the sanctity of their authentic Scriptures, disclaims any intention of lowering the status of their Founders or of abating the spiritual ideals they inculcate…….” God Passes By, p. 100

However, it was only the former Dispensations that have been abrogated. The religions themselves have not been abrogated.

“Let no one, however, mistake my purpose. The Revelation, of which Bahá’u’lláh is the source and center, abrogates none of the religions that have preceded it, nor does it attempt, in the slightest degree, to distort their features or to belittle their value. It disclaims any intention of dwarfing any of the Prophets of the past, or of whittling down the eternal verity of their teachings. It can, in no wise, conflict with the spirit that animates their claims, nor does it seek to undermine the basis of any man’s allegiance to their cause.” The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp, 57-58

From: Fundamental Principle of Religious Truth

This is an exclusivist replacement model at its very core and it can only create violence and conflict as the older tradition declare the new one heretical and false by necessity so as not to get replaced.

Exclusivist? What about the older religions who claim that only their religion is the truth and all other religions are false? Christianity is the first one that comes to mind, but it Jews and Muslims also believe that only their religion is true.

Baha'is do not claim that only the Baha'i Faith is true. We only believe that the Baha'i Faith is the religion for this age, but we believe there will be more Messengers sent by God in the future and new religions will thereby be established.

 

[Trailblazer]

The same could be said for buying a new car. I 'progressed' to a new car. Do you keep the old one hanging around?

I never buy new cars, I buy used. My newest car is a 1999 Honda CRV, but I keep my old 1986 Honda Prelude hanging around.
The same applies to my houses. I got a newer house but I still have the two older houses hanging around.

I get lots of good stuff from older religions that are not as clearly apparent in the Baha'i Faith so there is a good reason to keep them hanging around.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And which one of these List of messiah claimants - Wikipedia has come to correct the misconceptions of the Baha'i faith?

With this, I'm just trying to put you in our boots. What if a more current messenger claimant came to say he was the new revised version of Baha'u'llah? How would you receive him? (Not that that will happen, because Baha'u'llah historically is so insignificant compared to Christ or Muhammad.) Maybe some day we'll have such a one come and proselytize to you. We have had a few drop by, claiming to be God or the return of Christ, and I didn't see anyone, including Baha'is, going all an agog about it. We also have a few people here who are followers of messiah claimants, but they don't proselytize like a couple of the Baha'i folks here do, so they're far less to have their claims countered.

To you and others it could be any one of the claimants who are good spiritual teachers in your estimation. we are told that another Teacher will not arise for about a thousand years so over 150 years has already passed. For myself I don’t know and it would be very harrowing and confusing to try and make a choice.

Also, at some time in the future, a new Teacher/Manifestation we are told will arise to bring new teachings for that time . And Baha’u’llah states about that time -‘ My fears are for Him Who will be sent down unto you after Me', So of course Baha’is are likely to oppose a future Teacher just like past religions. We are no different than anyone else and are far from perfect.

 

[Trailblazer]

What if a more current messenger claimant came to say he was the new revised version of Baha'u'llah? How would you receive him?

We would believe that He is a lying imposter.

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

 

[Vinayaka]

We would believe that He is a lying imposter.

And does this in any way help you understand how the vast majority of Christians and Muslims understand Baha'u'llah?

 

[Link]

And does this in any way help you understand how the vast majority of Christians and Muslims understand Baha'u'llah?

The thing is the Maitreya is aware of this passage, and has his tricks like Baha'allah has his tricks with Seal of Prophets verse (saying Mohammad (s) is metaphorically Adam (a) and hence metaphorically the final Nabi (whoever he will be) too).

And the tricks are in fact simpler to what Baha'allah did to both the Bayaan time frame and as well way simpler then what he did with Seal of Prophets verse.

But per standards of Bahai Faith, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, they have to let the Prophet interpret it and not make their own interpretation, so let's see what happens.

 

[Trailblazer]

And does this in any way help you understand how the vast majority of Christians and Muslims understand Baha'u'llah?

Yes, I know that is how Christians and Muslims understand Baha'u'llah, but the difference is that they have no scriptures saying “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."
In other words, they have no scriptures that say that 'any prophet that comes after the prophet they believe in' would be a lying imposter.

All they have is their own ego that says "I know I am right about Baha'u'llah, he is a lying imposter."
They have no proof of any kind to back up that belief, only misinterpretations of their own scriptures.

 

[CG Didymus]

It’s common that a Prophet/Messenger of a subsequent religion corrects some misconceptions of the followers of the previous religion. The purpose of any Messenger is to bring truth and so we find that whenever a new Prophet arises and does not comply with the current beliefs, He is tortured and killed in many instances.

What do religious/spiritual teachers from India have to do with any of the Abrahamic ones? For instance, what did Moses correct and say was wrong teachings of Krishna or Buddha? And, if you say that Moses came after one or both of them, then what did Jesus find wrong with their teachings and had to correct?

The problem I have with this Baha'i belief is that I don't think there is a connection.

 

[Vinayaka]

What do religious/spiritual teachers from India have to do with any of the Abrahamic ones? For instance, what did Moses correct and say was wrong teachings of Krishna or Buddha? And, if you say that Moses came after one or both of them, then what did Jesus find wrong with their teachings and had to correct?

The problem I have with this Baha'i belief is that I don't think there is a connection.

There is no connection, other than the one the Baha'is made up. Very different paradigms, as you know.

 

[Link]

Yes, I know that is how Christians and Muslims understand Baha'u'llah, but the difference is that they have no scriptures saying “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."
In other words, they have no scriptures that say that 'any prophet that comes after the prophet they believe in' would be a lying imposter.

All they have is their own ego that says "I know I am right about Baha'u'llah, he is a lying imposter."
They have no proof of any kind to back up that belief, only misinterpretations of their own scriptures.

We do. But again everyone can play games with words as does the Maitreya with the passage you quoted.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem I have with this Baha'i belief is that I don't think there is a connection.

The connection is that all these teachers came from the same God, and they taught different things because they came in different ages.
Humans and the world they lived in were very different in those ages so they required different teachings from God. It's that simple.

The religious/spiritual teachers from India have nothing to do with any of the Abrahamic ones.
Why would they, given they are from a very different line of religion?

Why would Moses correct and say what was wrong teachings of Krishna or Buddha?
Why would Baha'u'llah correct and say what was wrong teachings of Krishna or Buddha?
Baha'u'llah claimed to be the return of Christ prophesied in the Bible, so He referred mainly to Christ and the Prophets mentioned in the Bible.

Imo, Baha'is should not be weighing in on the teachings of Krishna or Buddha since Baha'u'llah did not weigh in on them.
I consider it arrogant and rude to claim they know more about Buddhist and Hindu teachings than Buddhists and Hindus.

Jesus did correct some of the laws of Moses since they were both from the Abrahamic line of religion, and Jesus was the next Prophet in the progressive revelation of Prophets who fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is no connection, other than the one the Baha'is made up. Very different paradigms, as you know.

Yes, they make up a connection, like the Dharmic and Abrahamic religions all came from the same God. I still think they would have been better off just saying that all the other religions are wrong.

 

[sayak83]

Baha'is do not believe that the Bahai Faith has 'replaced' the older religions. We only believe that the former religious 'Dispensations' have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, upholds uncompromisingly the eternal verities they enshrine, recognizes firmly and absolutely the Divine origin of their Authors, preserves inviolate the sanctity of their authentic Scriptures, disclaims any intention of lowering the status of their Founders or of abating the spiritual ideals they inculcate…….” God Passes By, p. 100

However, it was only the former Dispensations that have been abrogated. The religions themselves have not been abrogated.

“Let no one, however, mistake my purpose. The Revelation, of which Bahá’u’lláh is the source and center, abrogates none of the religions that have preceded it, nor does it attempt, in the slightest degree, to distort their features or to belittle their value. It disclaims any intention of dwarfing any of the Prophets of the past, or of whittling down the eternal verity of their teachings. It can, in no wise, conflict with the spirit that animates their claims, nor does it seek to undermine the basis of any man’s allegiance to their cause.” The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp, 57-58

From: Fundamental Principle of Religious Truth

Exclusivist? What about the older religions who claim that only their religion is the truth and all other religions are false? Christianity is the first one that comes to mind, but it Jews and Muslims also believe that only their religion is true.

Baha'is do not claim that only the Baha'i Faith is true. We only believe that the Baha'i Faith is the religion for this age, but we believe there will be more Messengers sent by God in the future and new religions will thereby be established.

What is the difference between a religion and it's dispensation? What this para you quoted shows that Bahai are basically claiming that these older religions have been superseded by yours.
The Bahai claim that theirs is the one correct divinely mandated religion for this age. That is the definition of an exclusivism. Just like the older ones too. There is always only one correct religion in a given period is it not? So Exclusivist.

 

[CG Didymus]

Vinayaka is a Saivite Hindu not a Vaishnavite. Shiavism is one of the four main branches of Hinduism. They worship Shiva as their main deity. They don't believe in avatars and Krishna is not part of Vinayaka's sampradaya.

So, one group believes in Krishna and that he is an incarnation of the God Vishnu or is God himself. For Baha'is, they believe he is a manifestation of the one true God that they believe in.

The other group has Shiva as their "main" deity. And if he is their main deity, who are the other deities they believe in? And who was their manifestation? And how do Baha'is make sense of these beliefs in different Gods? But also, since Baha'is do believe that Krishna was a true manifestation of God, then aren't they wrong in not accepting him?

If there was an official Baha'i answer, I'd love to hear it. But I don't expect that there is. Baha'is have put themselves into this fix. How do Baha'is explain their way out of it?

And another one... Sabeans? Why do Baha'is make them one of the nine religions? Other than they needed the amount to add up to the "sacred" number nine.

 

[CG Didymus]

And another one... Sabeans? Why do Baha'is make them one of the nine religions? Other than they needed the amount to add up to the "sacred" number nine.

I just looked up the religion of the Assyrian Empire...

Ancient Assyrian religion was largely polytheistic, consisting of multiple gods and goddesses— each associated with different domains and aspects of life. The Assyrians, however, favoured Āshūr and considered him to be the single omnipotent national god of Assyria and the divine patron of their empire.​

​

The king of Assyria held a special religious role and was seen— by the Assyrians as well as his subjects —as an intermediary between Āshūr and the people. In fact, the king was considered the “shepherd” of the people, maintaining order and ensuring the favour of Āshūr.​

​

Symbolism associated with Āshūr portray him with anthropomorphic features. For instance, Āshūr is often depicted as a bearded figure, wearing a horned headdress, positioned within a winged sun disc wielding a bow and arrow— representing his role as a warrior god.​

​

Worship of Āshūr played a crucial role in developing a cohesive cultural or national identity— the Āshūrāyū “of Āshūr” or “Assyrians”. The veneration of a common national deity also helped bind various regions and social groups within the empire together, reinforcing a shared cultural and religious identity.​

​

According to historians, Assyrians’ devotion to Āshūr may be one of the earliest examples of monotheistic worship, predating the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism (Persia), Atenism (Egypt), and all three Abrahamic faiths— Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Founded almost 5,000 years ago, worship of Āshūr continued to attract devotees up until it was superseded by Christianity in the fourth- or fifth centuries CE.​

​

There are so many religions of so many different ancient people. And most of them are ignored and just a few get accepted into the "special" category of being the real and true religions of the one true God.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is the difference between a religion and it's dispensation? What this para you quoted shows that Bahai are basically claiming that these older religions have been superseded by yours.

“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it …….” God Passes By, p. 100

The difference between supersede and abrogate is that supersede is displace in favor of another while abrogate is to put an end to; to do away with. What is the difference between supersede and abrogate?

In God Passes By, when Shoghi Effendi wrote that the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh abrogates all the Dispensations gone before it, he meant that it puts and end to/does away with all the former dispensations.

To say that all the previous dispensations have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah means that the divine ordering of the affairs of the world for the present age is through the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, not through any of the former dispensations.

Dispensation

1. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
2. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
3. a divinely appointed order or age:

e.g. the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Definition of dispensation | Dictionary.com

That does not mean to say that the religions have been abrogated, because a divinely revealed religion can never be abrogated.

“Let no one, however, mistake my purpose. The Revelation, of which Bahá’u’lláh is the source and center, abrogates none of the religions that have preceded it.” The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp, 57-58

The Bahai claim that theirs is the one correct divinely mandated religion for this age. That is the definition of an exclusivism.

Yes, the Baha'i claim that the Baha'i Faith is the divinely mandated religion for this age but that is not the definition of exclusivism.
Baha'is do not believe that only one particular religion or belief system is true.

What does exclusivism mean in religion?

Religious exclusivism, or religious exclusivity, is the doctrine or belief that only one particular religion or belief system is true. This is in contrast to religious pluralism.

Religious exclusivism - Wikipedia​

Just like the older ones too. There is always only one correct religion in a given period is it not? So Exclusivist.

No, the Baha'i Faith is not like the older religions, such as Judaism, Christianity. None of those religions claim that they are the one correct religion for a given time period. All of those religions claim they are the one correct religion for all of time. Can't get any more exclusivist than that!

 

[sayak83]

“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it …….” God Passes By, p. 100

The difference between supersede and abrogate is that supersede is displace in favor of another while abrogate is to put an end to; to do away with. What is the difference between supersede and abrogate?

In God Passes By, when Shoghi Effendi wrote that the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh abrogates all the Dispensations gone before it, he meant that it puts and end to/does away with all the former dispensations.

To say that all the previous dispensations have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah means that the divine ordering of the affairs of the world for the present age is through the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, not through any of the former dispensations.

Dispensation

1. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
2. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
3. a divinely appointed order or age:

e.g. the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Definition of dispensation | Dictionary.com

That does not mean to say that the religions have been abrogated, because a divinely revealed religion can never be abrogated.

“Let no one, however, mistake my purpose. The Revelation, of which Bahá’u’lláh is the source and center, abrogates none of the religions that have preceded it.” The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp, 57-58

Yes, the Baha'i claim that the Baha'i Faith is the divinely mandated religion for this age but that is not the definition of exclusivism.
Baha'is do not believe that only one particular religion or belief system is true.

What does exclusivism mean in religion?

Religious exclusivism, or religious exclusivity, is the doctrine or belief that only one particular religion or belief system is true. This is in contrast to religious pluralism.

Religious exclusivism - Wikipedia​

No, the Baha'i Faith is not like the older religions, such as Judaism, Christianity. None of those religions claim that they are the one correct religion for a given time period. All of those religions claim they are the one correct religion for all of time. Can't get any more exclusivist than that!

What is the proper divinely mandated role and function of an older revealed religion (say Christianity) in the world when the dispensation passes from it to a newer revealed religion (say Islam)?

I am not much interested in definitional niceties. Can you answer this with a simple yes and no?

According to Bahai beliefs, God has ordained that all people of the world ought to follow one and only one religious system at a given period of time throughout the world......and that religion is the Bahai religion at the current time of history?

Yes or No?