• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who Was Baha’u’llah, and How Can We Evaluate His Claims?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I did not assume. Maybe re-read?
Paul neither corrupted Christianity, nor changed the original features. The opposite is the case.
Paul changed the course of Christianity. Whether he corrupted it or not is a matter of opinion.
Fruits don't appear out of nowhere. Ultimately you rely on MrB's words -- the seeds which produced what is, to you, fruit.
That is absolutely false. Fruits are the result of successful work or actions. I rely upon Baha'u'llah's works to show me His fruits. His works can be seen in what He accomplished on His mission, which anyone can read about in the various accounts of Baha'i history.

Words do not produce fruits. Words mean nothing without deeds.

“The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds; he whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than his life.

Man is like unto a tree. If he be adorned with fruit, he hath been and will ever be worthy of praise and commendation. Otherwise a fruitless tree is but fit for fire.”
Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 156, 257
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I reject MrB. I do not reject God.
If Baha'u'llah is God's Manifestation, then rejecting Baha'u'llah is akin to rejecting God.

“O people, if ye deny these verses, by what proof have ye believed in God? Produce it, O assemblage of false ones.

Nay, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, they are not, and never shall be able to do this, even should they combine to assist one another....

Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this Beauty hath also turned away from the Messengers of the past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity.”

Bahá’u’lláh, Tablet of Ahmad
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
There somethings to note about it.

It's a day the truth is so apparent, no one can deny it, and no one will.
It's a day disbelievers regret and repent and acknowledge the truth, but their repentance and regret won't be accepted. The Quran literally says they will believe but their faith won't benefit them.
People will either be looking towards their Lord for reward or punishment, paradise or hell will come to full reality on this day.
People will be asked about their sins but not in a way inquiring as to know, but rather, rhetorically and they won't be given chance to give excuses.
There is no way to take refuge in God's rope, if you did not take refuge in God's rope and won't benefit from intercession if didn't already seek the intercession of chosen ones.
People will ask to return as they are now certain, and they won't repeat sins. But God says you promised before the same thing (when his throne was on the waters before this world was created).

There's more details. But this is definitely not about a raising of a Warner who is not this day but rather warns about that day.
Where in the Qur'an does it say all these things will happen on the day of Judgment?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
But let's get back to my question. If you do know that Christian teaching has been corrupted, you must know from what original teaching it has been corrupted. Logic 101 :D
I already answered that.
#696 Trailblazer, Today at 12:16 PM

That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Read more: How Paul changed the course of Christianity
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Actually that is a sound suggestion as I was reading last night it was actually the Glory of God that did send all.the Messengers.

The unity and oneness of the Messengers is astounding.

Regards Tony
Sending "all" the messengers/manifestations is too vague. It's something that can't be proven. And Baha'is have to resort to the claim that the older religions have been corrupted to explain away the various contradictions. Or... the good old explain it away by saying things like Satan and the resurrection were only symbolic.

I'm fine with the different religions having contradictions. But I think that is because the religion and their Gods were a product of their culture, rather than a divine messenger. But this, again, is the kind of thing that can be argued back and forth between us and never get resolved. But it is Baha'is who keep putting out the claim that "all" the messengers and "all" the religions all came from the same source, the one and only true God?

Yet, lots of religions have multiple Gods. So, I'll say what Baha'is claim is not true. Then Baha'is say "No" that "originally" all the messengers taught similar things and taught about the one true God. But there is no "original" message. Except, for what the Baha'i Faith says was the "original" message. How convenient is that? The "truth" of the older religions becomes whatever the Baha'i Faith says it was.

You choose to believe it but there is never any objective proof of any of the claims. So, it must be taken on faith. And I understand that once a person believes in the Baha'i Faith that all things fall into place. Everything makes so much sense. But... that's exactly what happens to those people that become literal believing Christians. They "know" that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, literal word of God. If it says creation happened about 6000 years, that's when it happened. If it says the world was completely flooded about 4000 or so years ago, that's what happened. If it say Jesus died and rose again and is coming back, that is what happened and is what will happen.

You could argue the Baha'i claims with those types of Christians all day, and it would be the same thing, nothing would get resolved. It would just go round and round. And how could we stop this "round and round"? It would be objective proof and evidence. Of which there ain't any. Baha'is keep putting it out there that his life, his mission and his character?

That doesn't matter to me, because I don't like how Baha'is claim that the Bab and Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions. But I look at them and they all have problems. Most are too vague and others are taken out of context. So, prophecies prove nothing... And that argument goes round and round.

Then there is "progressive" revelation. That is part of the arguments against the Baha'is claims that have come up on this thread. Ancient religions were all over the place with their beliefs. Almost as if they were made up by people and not "revealed" by some messenger. Both Hinduism and Buddhism don't fit very well into the Baha'i "progressive" revelation concept. And I don't think there is one set of Scriptures from either one of those religions that Baha'is would support as being the true Scriptures of those religions. But who wants to debate that? You and I don't know enough about them to argue in any meaningful way. But should we? Or... should we just accept them for what they are? Just different, and sometimes contradictory, writings about religious and spiritual things. Maybe somethings are true. Maybe somethings are false. But what can we learn from them? Rather then... How can we change them to fit our religious beliefs?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I have read many posts by Link on this topic and he is actually talking about the Revelations of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Yet has not seen them as he is in a different frame of reference.

Regards Tony
And that's similar to Christians talking about the return of Jesus. Totally different interpretations. Christians might see the "Two Witnesses" as being Moses and Elijah. Baha'is see them as Muhammad and Ali. Christians might see the "Three Woes" as judgements coming on the evil people of the world. Baha'is see them as Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Who's right?
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
And that's similar to Christians talking about the return of Jesus. Totally different interpretations. Christians might see the "Two Witnesses" as being Moses and Elijah. Baha'is see them as Muhammad and Ali. Christians might see the "Three Woes" as judgements coming on the evil people of the world. Baha'is see them as Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Who's right?

Well the Bab and Baha'u'llah are definitely right. :D

You did ask.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Sending "all" the messengers/manifestations is too vague. It's something that can't be proven

It is proven the same way or has always been proven. By the Message given, as it is from God and is suited to the age.

I do not know what is coming to make people look with new eyes and hear with new ears, but I suspect the world will suffer across all Nations, it is building CG. There is no stopping the financial collapse now and that is one front of the war being waged.

Regards Tony
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
It is virtues, morals, justice and compassion I speak of, as that is a mindset that is Godly.
Those that do not show in their lives virtues, morals, justice and compassion are of a godless mindset.
Atheists are just as likely to be moral, just and compassionate as religionists.
Ironically, you have just demonstrated the blind intolerance of the religious mindset by insisting that atheists cannot display those virtues, simply because they duo not believe in gods.

The key here is we can be virtuous with morals, justice and compassion without acknowledging they are from God, or we get to acknowledge the source of our ability to become virtuous, with morals, justice and compassion.
But they clearly are not from god, as "godless" people can display them.
What's more, different religions have different moral values, and some religious people do not display them.

"The Prophets of God are the first Educators. They bestow universal education upon man and cause him to rise from the lowest levels of savagery to the highest pinnacles of spiritual development. The philosophers, too, are educators along lines of intellectual training. At most, they have only been able to educate themselves and a limited number about them, to improve their own morals and, so to speak, civilize themselves; but they have been incapable of universal education. They have failed to cause an advancement for any given nation from savagery to civilization." Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 84-85
Yet the reality we see generally shows that reason, rational thought, the move away from blind adherence to dogma is what raises a society to better things.
It its interesting that you have not addressed that part of my argument. The evidence that secular, liberal democracies offer more peace and unity than theocracies or highly religious nations.
Why do you think that is?

History has shown the greatest chance we have for a unified humanity lays in the teachings of a Messenger of God,
Nonsense. There is literally zero chance of the entire world following the Baha'i faith.
The best chance for world peace and unity is the acceptance that people are different, and not trying to impose our own ideologies on others. Mutual cooperation and understanding, rather than meaningless platitudes is the way forward

no man, not matter how virtuous has been able to achieve what Moses, Jesus and Muhammad have.
And what have they actually achieved? Certainly much conflict, division and intolerance.
If the world had been following the principles of the Greek philosophers for the last 2500 years, rather than blind adherence to superstitious dogma, the world might well have been a much better place.

But now is the age of the unity of all humanity and that can only come about in the manner that Baha'u'llah has offered it must.
Yeah, good luck with that. :rolleyes:

Thus we work for the unity of all humanity, we live our lives for all humanity.
And how are you doing that, in practical terms? What action have you taken to change and improve the political or social system in your country?

It is the teachings we guide people to, as they are virtues, morals, justice, love and compassion that have show a path to enabke us to obtain peace and unity.
Ah, so nothing, apart from uttering meaningless platitudes.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
@Muffled you are still asked to show what is bad fruit in what Baha'u'llah taught, or in his person even.
The main issue is that he claims that completely contradictory messages are all from god, which means that it is not possible to know if a message is genuinely from god or not (or if there even is a god at all). @Trailblazer has run into this problem when trying to explain how we know if a messenger or religion is true or false.

Bahaullah ruled that only men can serve on the Universal House of Justice, so he is guilty of misogyny/sexist discrimination.
He was also homophobic/sexually intolerant.
He prescribed burning people alive as a punishment for arson (that is some weird barbarism that makes other religious codes seem relatively liberal!)

None of those things are compatible with world peace and unity through compassion and justice, so his message is inherently hypocritical.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Can you show me where Shoghi Effendi implied that babies dying in agony from congenital conditions is "God's best way of disposing of their lives"?
"God Who is the Author of all life can alone take it away, and dispose of it the way he deems best."

This means that however a person dies, it is god's doing and the manner that he "deems best".
Therefore if a baby dies in agony from a congenital condition, it is god "taking life away, and disposing of it the way he deems best".

@TransmutingSoul , you still haven't responded to this, even though it was initially addressed to you.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
I see many progressive movements have principles expounded by God.
Liberal socialism is essentially what ordinary people consider to be a fair and just society. The right and ability to work and live freely, without oppression or exploitation. To help those in need and in turn be helped when necessary. This has always been the case. If such sentiments found their way into religion (I would like some examples), then it is because religions are man-made and reflect our hopes, desires and expectations and well as our fears and intolerances.

I note this concept started in mid to late 1800's, I wonder why CG, actually I do not wonder
Liberal Socialism became a coherent philosophy and movement when it did because of the fundamentally changes in society at the time. The decline of authoritarianism and subservience to tradition, the rise of democracy and suffrage and education. The Industrial Revolution. The Enlightenment of the previous century.
Why do you think it arose when it did? I do hope you are going to claim it was because of Bahullah. :tearsofjoy:
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
As time as gone on, Baha'is have been increasingly encouraged to interact with the wider society, to help bring about meaningful change. Some Baha'is are doing that. I'm just starting to do that myself. In the new nine year plan, it is emphasized that we engage in the discourses of society. We would like to have more Baha'is, but it is just as important, and more so probably, that we spread the spiritual aspects of our teachings, and the social aspects of our teachings and influence people we interact with, and learn from the people people of other faith traditions, to be friends with them. Thanks, Susan, also known as @Trailblazer for alerting me to this conversation.
So apart from becoming a Baha'i - what are the practical measures you propose? What, specifically, do you want people to do?
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Like the communists of the Soviet Union, the communists of China? Was Hitler religious?
Are you seriously claiming that the USSR, PRC and Nazi Germany were "liberal, secular democracies"?

Every German soldier under Hitler had "God is With Us" on their belt buckle. ;)

It is a misconception also that war has happened mostly because of religion.
I agree (which is why I have never made that claim). It is mostly because of the desire for power, land and resources. However, the dehumanisation of outsiders fostered by religion (and other intolerant ideologies) makes the messy parts of war much easier to achieve.

The Baha'i scriptures are unambigiously peaceful and they enjoin fellowship and friendship with people of all religions.
Yet they still contain much of the same intolerance and discrimination as the other Abrahamics.

My point was that today - There is more peace and unity in, between and from liberal, secular democracies than there is in, between and from theocracies and highly religious nations.
In general, "godless" people seem to be less violent and more tolerant than religious people.


Perhaps you could address my actual point rather than a succession of straw men?
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Sure, take credit for it. But just a quick search turned up this...
In antiquity[edit]
See also: History of communism § Communism in antiquity
Ideas and political traditions that are conceptually related to modern socialism have their origins in antiquity and the Middle Ages.[6] Ancient Egypt had a strong, unified, theocratic state which, along with its temple system employed peasants in massive labor projects and owned key parts of the economy, such as the granaries which dispensed grain to the public in hard times.[7] This system of government is sometimes referred to as 'theocratic socialism".[8]

In Ancient Greece, while private property was an acknowledged part of society with the basic element of Greek economic and social life being the privately owned estate or oikos, it was still understood that the needs of the city or polis always came before those of the individual property owner and his family.[9] Ancient Greeks were also encouraged by their custom of koinonia to voluntarily share their wealth and property with other citizens, forgive the debts of debtors, serve in roles as public servants without pay, and participate in other pro-social actions.[9] This idea of koinonia could express itself it different ways throughout Ancient Greece from the communal oligarchy of Sparta[10] to Tarentum where the poor could access any property held in common.[9] Another Ancient Greek custom, the leitourgia resulted in the richest members of the community directly financing the state. By the late fifth century BC, more radical concepts of communal ownership became expounded in Greece.[11] Possibly in reply to this, Aristophanes wrote his early 4th-century play, Ecclesiazusae, which parodies communist, egalitarian, and gynocratic concepts that were already familiar in Classical Athens.[12] In the play, Athenian women are depicted as seizing control of the Athenian government and banning all private property. As the character Praxagora puts it "I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all."[13] Plato later wrote his Republic which argues for the common distribution of property between the upper elite in society who are, similar to Sparta, to live communally.[14]

The economy of the 3rd century BCE Mauryan Empire of India, under the rulership of its first emperor Chandragupta, who was assisted by his economic and political advisor Kautilya, has been described as," a socialized monarchy", "a sort of state socialism", and the world's first welfare state.[15] Under the Mauryan system there was no private ownership of land as all land was owned by the king to whom tribute was paid by the Shudras, or laboring class. In return the emperor supplied the laborers with agricultural products, animals, seeds, tools, public infrastructure, and stored food in reserve for times of crisis.[15] In Iran, Mazdak (died c. 524 or 528 CE), a priest and political refomer, preached and instituted a religiously based socialist or proto-socialist system in the Zoroastrian context of Sassanian Persia.[16]
And this...
In response to the inequalities in the industrializing economy of late 18th century Britain pamphleteers and agitators such as Thomas Spence and Thomas Paine began to advocate for social reform. As early as the 1770s Spence called for the common ownership of land, democratically run decentralized government..

In the post-revolutionary period in the decade after the French Revolution of 1789, activists and theorists like François-Noël Babeuf and Philippe Buonarroti spread egalitarian ideas that would later influence the early French labour and socialist movements...

The first modern socialists were early 19th-century Western European social critics. In this period socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social experiments associated primarily with British and French thinkers...

Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon (1760–1825) was the founder of French socialism as well as modern theoretical socialism in general.
So who influenced whom? I still wonder, but I'm sure you will still give credit to Baha'u'llah.
Indeed. Their deluded confirmation bias is staggering. I bet if the internet was used as an example of a global, unifying force, they would claim it was Bahullah who invented it. :tearsofjoy:
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
If Baha'u'llah is God's Manifestation, then rejecting Baha'u'llah is akin to rejecting God.
If Bahaullah is a false prophet, then following him is akin to rejecting god.

As you have admitted that it's just your opinion that he was a messenger of god, it's all just a gamble really. You've made your bet. You just have to wait for the result.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Sending "all" the messengers/manifestations is too vague. It's something that can't be proven. And Baha'is have to resort to the claim that the older religions have been corrupted to explain away the various contradictions. Or... the good old explain it away by saying things like Satan and the resurrection were only symbolic.

I'm fine with the different religions having contradictions. But I think that is because the religion and their Gods were a product of their culture, rather than a divine messenger. But this, again, is the kind of thing that can be argued back and forth between us and never get resolved. But it is Baha'is who keep putting out the claim that "all" the messengers and "all" the religions all came from the same source, the one and only true God?

Yet, lots of religions have multiple Gods. So, I'll say what Baha'is claim is not true. Then Baha'is say "No" that "originally" all the messengers taught similar things and taught about the one true God. But there is no "original" message. Except, for what the Baha'i Faith says was the "original" message. How convenient is that? The "truth" of the older religions becomes whatever the Baha'i Faith says it was.

You choose to believe it but there is never any objective proof of any of the claims. So, it must be taken on faith. And I understand that once a person believes in the Baha'i Faith that all things fall into place. Everything makes so much sense. But... that's exactly what happens to those people that become literal believing Christians. They "know" that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, literal word of God. If it says creation happened about 6000 years, that's when it happened. If it says the world was completely flooded about 4000 or so years ago, that's what happened. If it say Jesus died and rose again and is coming back, that is what happened and is what will happen.

You could argue the Baha'i claims with those types of Christians all day, and it would be the same thing, nothing would get resolved. It would just go round and round. And how could we stop this "round and round"? It would be objective proof and evidence. Of which there ain't any. Baha'is keep putting it out there that his life, his mission and his character?

That doesn't matter to me, because I don't like how Baha'is claim that the Bab and Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions. But I look at them and they all have problems. Most are too vague and others are taken out of context. So, prophecies prove nothing... And that argument goes round and round.

Then there is "progressive" revelation. That is part of the arguments against the Baha'is claims that have come up on this thread. Ancient religions were all over the place with their beliefs. Almost as if they were made up by people and not "revealed" by some messenger. Both Hinduism and Buddhism don't fit very well into the Baha'i "progressive" revelation concept. And I don't think there is one set of Scriptures from either one of those religions that Baha'is would support as being the true Scriptures of those religions. But who wants to debate that? You and I don't know enough about them to argue in any meaningful way. But should we? Or... should we just accept them for what they are? Just different, and sometimes contradictory, writings about religious and spiritual things. Maybe somethings are true. Maybe somethings are false. But what can we learn from them? Rather then... How can we change them to fit our religious beliefs?
The whole "All previous religions were corrupted versions of the one true religion" was claimed by Islam, so Bahaullah just nicked it from Muhammad.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The problem is Link that every Messenger brings the 'Day of God'. That also becomes the 'Judgement Day'.

There is much written to explain this now.

Peace be with you.

Regards Tony

This is false and can be easily proven through contextualizing all verses about this subject with each other and with the Surahs and topics they are in.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If Bahaullah is a false prophet, then following him is akin to rejecting god.

As you have admitted that it's just your opinion that he was a messenger of god, it's all just a gamble really. You've made your bet. You just have to wait for the result.

Yes, you are correct.
Where in the Qur'an does it say all these things will happen on the day of Judgment?

In a lot of places repeated through out.
 
Top