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

[KWED]

There are monotheistic sects in Hinduism like the Prajapita Brahmakumaris, Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, Kabir Panthis , Lingayats that worships a monotheistic God .

Hinduism is inclusive of other religions and consider the likes of Jesus Christ and Muhammad as holy figures due to the teachings of Ramakrishna and other Hindu enlightened sages.The Brahmakumaris consider both to be prophets of God.

There may be variance with some aspects of the theological doctrines of other religions on account of their exclusivist stance, but generally its own theological doctrine is inclusive of all.

Many religionists seem to claim a universality and inclusiveness that their doctrine does not support.
I mean, claiming that Hinduism is a monotheist faith with Jesus as a recognised prophet is stretching credulity somewhat, with all due respect.

Still, religions change and evolve unto new ones. Who's to say that in 500 years people won't be travelling to Mecca to worship a blue Jesus with an elephant's head?

 

[ajay0]

Many religionists seem to claim a universality and inclusiveness that their doctrine does not support.
I mean, claiming that Hinduism is a monotheist faith with Jesus as a recognised prophet is stretching credulity somewhat, with all due respect.

You seem to be having problems with comprehension.

I said there are monotheistic sects in Hinduism as well, just as there are sects devoted to monism ( advaita) and non-theism (sankhya) and henotheism.

There are also atheists adhering to charvak philosophy who term themselves as Hindu.

 

[KWED]

There are also atheists adhering to charvak philosophy who term themselves as Hindu.

Claiming that Charvaka atheism is a branch of Hinduism is, again, stretching things beyond breaking.

 

[CG Didymus]

So you admit that in this great utopia of global peace and unity, there will be an elite ruling class based on membership of a religion, and the majority will be disenfranchised and without representation.
So basically, oppressive theological totalitarianism.
Sounds perfect. Can't understand why everyone hasn't already signed up.

The way I understand it is God is really upset with us for rejecting his manifestation. So, he's going to cause so many bad things to happen, like the plagues he sent to the Egyptians, that we are going to beg the Baha'is to take control.

But as usual, I get mixed messages from Baha'is. Some of them say that the Baha'i laws will only be for Baha'is, and they have no plans on ruling the world. Even though some of the supposed "fulfilled" prophecies say that the Messiah will have the government on his shoulders and rule from the throne of David.

 

[CG Didymus]

But his character, his writings, his message!
And what about all the followers and people prepared to die for that belief? And what about his prophecies?

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad can't use those. Mirza Husayn Ali, aka Baha'u'llah, already claimed those proofs for himself.

 

[CG Didymus]

If only you had rational argument to fall back on, rather than just quoting platitudes.
You might have made a better job of it.

What Baha'is don't seem to realize is that because of us, their threads have become very successful. Not at proving anything, because they can't, but at getting a large number of posts.

 

[CG Didymus]

Where does Hindus claim that the 'others are wrong' ?

The enlightened sage Sri Ramakrishna stated that all religions are valid paths to the Divine. Same did Mahatma Gandhi for that matter .

But how do they interpret that some of the other religions do see themselves as the "only" true religion? Like with the Baha'is, they say that all the major religions are true and follow the one true God. But then they say that all the other religions added things in and misinterpreted the "original" teachings of the prophet/founder and that's where all the contradictions between the different religions came from.

Which, to me, is still saying that all the other religions are wrong, because Baha'is don't believe that any of them have or are following any "original" teachings.

Here's a Baha'i quote on Buddhism...

Abdu’l-Bahá said: The real teaching of Buddha is the same as the teaching of Jesus Christ. The teachings of all the Prophets are the same in character. Now men have changed the teaching. If you look at the present practice of the Buddhist religion, you will see that there is little of the Reality left. Many worship idols although their teaching forbids it. … The teaching of Buddha was like a young and beautiful child, and now it has become as an old and decrepit man. Like the aged man it cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot remember anything. Why go so far back? Consider the laws of the Old Testament: the Jews do not follow Moses as their example nor keep his commands. So it is with many other religions.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Abdu’l-Baha in London, p. 63)***​

 

[Spirit of Light]

But how do they interpret that some of the other religions do see themselves as the "only" true religion? Like with the Baha'is, they say that all the major religions are true and follow the one true God. But then they say that all the other religions added things in and misinterpreted the "original" teachings of the prophet/founder and that's where all the contradictions between the different religions came from.

Which, to me, is still saying that all the other religions are wrong, because Baha'is don't believe that any of them have or are following any "original" teachings.

Here's a Baha'i quote on Buddhism...

Abdu’l-Bahá said: The real teaching of Buddha is the same as the teaching of Jesus Christ. The teachings of all the Prophets are the same in character. Now men have changed the teaching. If you look at the present practice of the Buddhist religion, you will see that there is little of the Reality left. Many worship idols although their teaching forbids it. … The teaching of Buddha was like a young and beautiful child, and now it has become as an old and decrepit man. Like the aged man it cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot remember anything. Why go so far back? Consider the laws of the Old Testament: the Jews do not follow Moses as their example nor keep his commands. So it is with many other religions.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Abdu’l-Baha in London, p. 63)***​

I think I must be a follower of Baha'u'llah because I agree with him...mankind added certain things in to the teachings from the past, to fit to today and by that the teaching is not true to the original anymore.

 

[samtonga43]

It is a possibility that God does not exist.

But you also say that you know that God exists. Can you explain the lack of logic here?

My belief might also be right, in which case you will be up the creek without a paddle when you die.

LOL! Pascal is alive and well…

 

[samtonga43]

To be clear, I do not have to accept anything I do not choose to accept because I have free will to choose what I am willing to accept. That is why I said: "No, I do not have to accept that it might be wrong just because it cannot be proven as a fact."

If it cannot be proven as a fact, you might be wrong. If you cannot accept this, you are more irrational than I thought.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think I must be a follower of Baha'u'llah because I agree with him...mankind added certain things in to the teachings from the past, to fit to today and by that the teaching is not true to the original anymore.

Actually, Baha'is have said that they don't really "convert" people to the Faith, they find people that already agree and believe in the things taught in the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

actually that said *and* my command is binding. Thus it seems to me to refer to both belief in the creator *and* the commandments.
Are you insisting that one can doubt the creator without doubting it's commandments? How does that even work?

"I doubt you are the creator and i doubt your work is perfect but your commands are binding"?!

In my opinion.

No, that is not what I meant. When I said that Baha'is are not expected to accept a fixed belief or set of beliefs without any doubts I was referring to certain beliefs that Baha'is have, I was not referring to belief in God. The first of the Twin Duties is recognition of Baha'u'llah who represents God, and that duty comes before the second duty which is obedience to His Laws..

“The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation.” Gleanings, p. 330

That same principle is presented earlier in Gleanings:

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.” Gleanings, p. 5

 

[samtonga43]

No, I said that my belief (opinion) is not a fact.

Is your belief, to you, the same as your opinion?

 

[Trailblazer]

Indeed.
You have the ability to accept that the earth orbits the sun, but you can choose to reject it.

You have just explained that you are simply exercising your ability to reject reality, logic and reason when it doesn't suit your existing beliefs.

As usual, you take what I say and create a straw man.
I said I do not have to accept anything I do not choose to accept because I have free will to choose what I am willing to accept.

I do not have to choose what you believe is correct.
Reality, logic, and reason is not defined by you.

 

[danieldemol]

No, that is not what I meant. When I said that Baha'is are not expected to accept a fixed belief or set of beliefs without any doubts I was referring to certain beliefs that Baha'is have, I was not referring to belief in God.

Then belief in a creator God is at least one of the dogmas of the Baha'i faith.

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is your belief, to you, the same as your opinion?

No, a belief is different from an opinion.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
Belief - Wikipedia

Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. opinion meaning - Google Search

The difference is that an opinion can be based upon fact or knowledge whereas a belief is not based upon facts.

 

[samtonga43]

As usual, you take what I say and create a straw man.
I said I do not have to accept anything I do not choose to accept because I have free will to choose what I am willing to accept.

A flat earth-er would say exactly the same. You are seeing straw men where there are none.

 

[danieldemol]

Claiming that Charvaka atheism is a branch of Hinduism is, again, stretching things beyond breaking.

According to my understanding Hinduism is just a name for religions of the Indus Valley and India more generally.

As such it seems to be the name for religions from a geographical location rather than a family of theologically related religions.

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you also say that you know that God exists. Can you explain the lack of logic here?
LOL! Pascal is alive and well…

There is no lack of logic.
Hypothetically speaking, it is a possibility that God does not exist since there is no way to prove that God exists.

But my knowing that God exists is not based upon proof. There are other ways of knowing.

 

[samtonga43]

No, a belief is different from an opinion.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
Belief - Wikipedia

Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. opinion meaning - Google Search

The difference is that an opinion can be based upon fact or knowledge whereas a belief is not based upon facts.

You said that your belief (opinion) is not a fact. This seems to imply that your belief is equivalent to your opinion.