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

[KWED]

Peace and unity will definitely not come about by Godless mindsets.

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.

Your fantasy does not correspond to the evidence of reality. Sorry.

 

[KWED]

Tony, how many things is KWED doing that are consistent with what Baha'i want to see happen? How many people are involved in trying to bring around change? With racial and gender issues? The environment and so many other things? People are doing the right things, but even though the Baha'i Faith is for those things, Baha'is aren't doing them. Baha'is seem more concerned about people recognizing their prophet. Is that the right thing to be focused on? Because Baha'is are missing connections with people that are doing the things needed to make positive change. But when Baha'is make it all about their prophet, and getting people to recognize him, that becomes a barrier.

Does it look like the Christ has already come and a new age has begun? No, things look worse than ever. So, Baha'is have to go into a big explanation of why things are getting worse. But Baha'is miss connections with lots of religious people too, because Baha'is tell them that their old religion no longer works and then Baha'is expect them to listen and understand? No, they are going to find reasons why the Baha'i Faith is not all that it claims to be. Baha'is keep presenting the Faith in ways that creates arguments. Arguments that neither side wins.

Like this thread... How do "we" evaluate Baha'u'llah's claims? Not favorably. And how do Baha'is evaluate them? As if they are so obvious that anybody can see that he is the return of the Christ, the return of Krishna, the return of Buddha, the return of everybody else ever promised? No, it's not "obvious". There's lots of questions and lots of things that are complicated or too vague to make it obviously true to everybody. So, we question. We argue. And we ask the same or similar questions over and over again. And Baha'i keep giving the same answers and say, "This is the proof. This is the evidence. God is real and sends manifestations. And manifestations are the evidence or proof, whatever the claim is, that God is real."

With KWED, what is this progressive liberal, socialist movement? He very well could be doing more things to bring about positive change to the world than many Baha'is. But we'll never know. Because we don't care about that. The big concern is... Does he believe the claims of Baha'u'llah?

Apart from the liberal-socialist political and social activism, I do post-grad research in climate-change science (specifically issues with marine environments).
I understand that some people believe that the mantra-like repeating of meaningless platitudes from a cult leader is doing more. Each to their own, I guess.

 

[Truthseeker]

Baha'is seem more concerned about people recognizing their prophet. Is that the right thing to be focused on? Because Baha'is are missing connections with people that are doing the things needed to make positive change. But when Baha'is make it all about their prophet, and getting people to recognize him, that becomes a barrier.

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.

 

[Muffled]

Then start sharing those contradictions, that is a direct and firm challenge.

Regards Tony

The B man does not believe in reincarnation but the Bible actually supports the concept.

 

[Muffled]

Matthew 12:33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.

So what is the Bad fruit?

Regards Tony

I believe deceiving people is bad fruit.

 

[Muffled]

So, if Baha'u'llah is not the return of Christ, then who was he and what is the Baha'i Faith?

I believe the B man is a religious philosopher and thos who believe in Him are not following God but are following a teacher.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

Your fantasy does not correspond to the evidence of reality. Sorry.

Like the communists of the Soviet Union, the communists of China? Was Hitler religious? All "godless" people are not not like that, of course. It is a misconception also that war has happened mostly because of religion. Was World War I or World War II fought over religion at all? Most wars, including in medieval Christian times were fought by Kings seeking power and conquest. In the early days of Christianity before Constantine, the Christians were not to be in the military. It's true that early on the Muslims expanded through warfare, but Christians and Jews at that time were not expected at all to become Muslims in their empire. Christians only gradually over centuries became Muslims. It'a a matter of opinion whether the Qur'an sanctioned this warfare to expand the area that the Caliph controlled. The Qur'an was not compiled together as a book at that time even when this expansion started.

The Baha'is in Iran have not fought back at all in the face of oppression there today. The first day when Baha'u'llah announced Hs claim, he abrogated any fighting back under any circumstances. The Baha'i scriptures are unambigiously peaceful and they enjoin fellowship and friendship with people of all religions.

 

[Truthseeker]

I believe deceiving people is bad fruit.

That's what some Jews said about Jesus. He deceives people, the implication being this is bad fruit.

7:12 And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people.
(King James Bible, John)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

Your fantasy does not correspond to the evidence of reality. Sorry.

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.

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.

Just because I offer a Faith, does not necessarily mean I am better at practising what is preached.

I offer a thought as to the power of change, its all about the end game, why we choose to be virtues.

"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

History has shown the greatest chance we have for a unified humanity lays in the teachings of a Messenger of God, no man, not matter how virtuous has been able to achieve what Moses, Jesus and Muhammad have.

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.

Thus we work for the unity of all humanity, we live our lives for all humanity. 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.

So we could talk about those required actions.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The B man does not believe in reincarnation but the Bible actually supports the concept.

You shared naught but your thoughts and proved nothing with them.

Put forward you biblical proof of reincarnation.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I believe deceiving people is bad fruit.

That's what some Jews said about Jesus. He deceives people, the implication being this is bad fruit.

7:12 And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people.
(King James Bible, John)

@Muffled you are still asked to show what is bad fruit in what Baha'u'llah taught, or in his person even.

One has to show they are not offering the bad fruit in their own views.

Regards Tony

 

[Link]

@Muffled you are still asked to show what is bad fruit in what Baha'u'llah taught, or in his person even.

One has to show they are not offering the bad fruit in their own views.

Regards Tony

One example of a bad fruit is his interpretation of day of judgment in Quran. That is an evil way to recite Quran and disrespectful to God and his words, in my view. Ahlulbayt (A) emphasized to stick to what is clear, and leave ambiguity till what is clear clarifies it. They emphasized the clear signs are from the original of the book revealed to Mohammad (s), while the unclearness that comes from it is from Satan. For example, clear signs in Quran example is Ahlulbayt (a) Welayat. And an example of ambiguity is justifying following Abu Bakr and Umar. The Quran appears differently to hard hearts and soft hearts, to misguided and guided, to disbelievers of the light and believers in the light. Two different books although some crossroad and agreement happens, it's way different.

The day of judgment interpretation should be done in a clear signs and eyes of certainty way. Quran condemns taking words of God outside their place. And this is what he does.

His methodology leaves no way to be guided by either Quran and Sunnah, and makes Quran into a play thing.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

One example of a bad fruit is his interpretation of day of judgment in Quran. That is an evil way to recite Quran and disrespectful to God and his words, in my view.

A personal view is not a proof of bad fruit.

Consider that both the Jews and Christians would offer the same about the interpretations of their faiths that Muhammad offered in the Quran. So a personal view does not validate interpretation is a bad fruit.

In fact, it is seen as a good fruit of those that have accepted the past Messengers, as it has shown them how past teachings have been misunderstood, it has helped them to change their lives and the direction of humanity for the better.

Regards Tony

 

[Link]

A personal view is not a proof of bad fruit.

Consider that both the Jews and Christians would offer the same about the interpretations of their faiths that Muhammad offered in the Quran. So a personal view does not validate interpretation is a bad fruit.

In fact, it is seen as a good fruit of those that have accepted the past Messengers, as it has shown them how past teachings have been misunderstood, it has helped them to change their lives and the direction of humanity for the better.

Regards Tony

I agree that a personal view is not a proof of bad fruit. But the day of judgment and interpretation of Bahai faith, shows, Bahai faith by principle of 3:7 and other verses about hard hearts taking words of God out of their place, and all verses about how to approach the Quran and Sunnah, to be of evil fruit.

It relies on ambiguity and is condemned.

Day of judgment is clearly not what Bahai faith claims it is.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no objective evidence though, even the claims we do have are subjective hearsay, written long after the events they purport to describe, and anonymously.

Glad to see you back.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you know that the "older religions have been corrupted". Because, if you do know this, you must also know what the original teachings were. Logic 101

Why do you assume I don't know what they were?

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

So perhaps you should stop relying on the words of an imprisoned individual who believed he was taking dictation from God.

I do not rely upon His words, I rely upon His fruits.

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: fruit

You have also had plenty of time to confirm your bias.

So have you.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, it was Shoghi Effendi. My bad.

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"?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I agree that a personal view is not a proof of bad fruit. But the day of judgment and interpretation of Bahai faith, shows, Bahai faith by principle of 3:7 and other verses about hard hearts taking words of God out of their place, and all verses about how to approach the Quran and Sunnah, to be of evil fruit.

It relies on ambiguity and is condemned.

Day of judgment is clearly not what Bahai faith claims it is.

I would offer saying the day of judgement is clearly not what Baha'u'llah offered, is again just an opinion

I would offer in return that many hundreds of thousands of Muslims have disagreed with your view, they did and still do embrace the Message of Baha’u’llah. Manybtens of thousands of Muslims gave their lives, many of them very knowledgeable Mullah's, as such, they saw what Baha'u'llah offers does not contradict the Quran.

They one and all have embraced the day of Judgement and that is another way we can evaluate the claim of Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony

 

[Link]

I would offer saying the day of judgement is clearly not what Baha'u'llah offered, is again just an opinion

But it happens to be true and easily provable as well.

 

[CG Didymus]

I note this concept started in mid to late 1800's, I wonder why CG, actually I do not wonder

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.