• 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?

Who was Baha'u'llah?

  • Baha'u'llah claimed to be a Manifestation of God, and truly He was the Manifestation of God.

    Votes: 6 14.3%
  • Baha'u'llah claimed to be return of Christ, but He was a Liar

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • Bahaullah claimed to be Messenger of God and He was sincere but He was delusional

    Votes: 17 40.5%
  • Baha'u'llah was a good man with good intentions but He knew He is not a Prophet

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • Bahaullah was a philosopher, and never claimed to be return of Christ

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't know and I don't even care

    Votes: 8 19.0%
  • I don't know, because I have not investigated

    Votes: 5 11.9%
  • I don't know for sure, because I cannot figure it out

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It is not possible to really know

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Total voters
    42

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
I touched on this last night but will repeat it here. I do not see these as "concepts that people came up with". No. Rather they are descriptions of actual realizations through actual experience. This is what mysticism is. It's not theological or metaphysical or fanciful speculations about something that the imaginations comes up with (which can have some value). Mysticism rather is about actual data gathering research. It is about exploration. It is about direct experiential encounters.

These are descriptions of firsthand experience, not "concepts people came up with at one time". They are maps of the terrain and territories that the explorers discovered on their journey. And, they are relatively consistent with the maps of other explorers who explored the same terrain on their own expeditions. The fact that there are commonalities in these descriptions that all say, "a river runs through here", means these are not just wild speculations about something no one has ever encountered. This is indicative of an objective reality.

Yeah, in theory. But yes and no. It also can be a way to never sail off across the sea because the "infallible source" claims the earth is flat and you'll fall off the edge. It can offer you a sense of security never having to risk anything being told Answers with a capital A, but that comes with a hefty price tag. You never get to step outside the box and move about under your own agency and feel what it is like to truly live, the way you were created to be.

Spirituality is about freedom of movement. It's about dancing. Not being told which foot goes where in a set, or fixed patterned movement. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty". That's what this means to me.

Everything we hear anyone say, regardless of the source, should be tested and proven by ourselves. Simply memorizing words and calling them truth, but never testing them is not really dancing, or living. It's just rigidity and inflexibility.

That's the problem with claiming infallible sources. It's like these fundamentalists who escape any self-responsibility and agency and make grandiose claims, "It's not my words, but God's words!". That is utter nonsense and a self-delusion. It's hiding inside of a box, not stepping out and dancing free under the the light of the sun.

And yet the Buddha himself said everyone can become a Buddha. Everyone Can Become a Buddha.

"And Buddha said that everyone can achieve what he did; everyone can become a Buddha. This is because we all have “Buddha-nature” – the fundamental working materials that enable Buddhahood."​
The way I state this is this. Everyone is already Enlightened. We just haven't been enlightened to that reality yet. ;) Enlightenment, Awakening, Salvation, is simply the Realization of what we already fully are. So absolutely yes, everyone can become Enlightened, because that is our true Nature. We all came from God, not some other source.

Now we are talking much closer to how I see things. Yes, you are agreeing that our true Nature is perfect, or to give that another term, Divine. Again, we all came from the same Source, which is the Divine. Not some other source outside of God.

Regarding the ego never completely disappears, I will conditionally agree with this, but not entirely so. This is a little complex and abstract, so I know this may be challenging. The human ego is simply how we perceive ourselves as distinct and separate from others. It is functionally necessary for me to be able to self-identify in this way. In this sense, I can never get rid of that "egoic self" anymore than I can get rid of my body and still be considered a human being.

But what we can "get rid of" or what we can "overcome" is that we no longer self-identify with that egoic-self, as the ultimate reality of who and what we are. This is what it means to "die to yourself" and live in the Spirit. When we realize "I have a body, but I am not my body. I have an ego, but I am not my ego", then we begin to be able to transcend that view of ourselves into something higher or greater than the egoic self. We become liberated from its chains it holds upon us.

Now we are able to live "in the Spirit" instead as the center of gravity of who and what we are. And the more we do that, the more the lower levels in us, such as our egos and our bodies, become transformed by the energies of that higher Self, or our spiritual nature, which comes from God and is Divinity itself in us.

This is what Enlightenment does. This is what Salvation is. "I am in the world, but I am not of the world". "I have overcome the world", and such. All language to describe a real, tangible, practical, direct experiential reality. Not just fluffy lofty words.

Does this take eons? It can. This is the teaching of reincarnation, coming back again and again until we find that Truth and are eventually set free from the trap of our mistaken self-identities. However, it can happen more rapidly by following tried and true paths, taught by other Masters.

But the goal is to become a Buddha yourself, not to set them upon a pedestal and tell yourself "I can never become Enlightened". That is a lie we tell ourselves, or that others tell us in order to keep us underneath their power and control.

Of course everyone is in a different place in following these things, but the core of any authentic religion is the mystical realization of union or reconciliation with the Divine. That the cornerstone that set the foundation in place. But of course, that can become buried and replaced by the dogmas of religiosity, forgetting their own spiritual Source.

Of course, as I said everyone is in a different place. But I make a distinction between exoteric and esoteric religion. Most everyone starts with exoteric religion: external rules and practices that they are to follow. An authentic exoteric religion, should lead to an esoteric, or interior religion, or one of realizing the principles on a spiritual subjective way. Esoteric religion leads to Awakening. Exoteric religion is at best the supporting structures of that building, scaffolding to climb to help in the construction of that inner building.

But when all there is is the exoteric religion, then you have religiosity, devoid of a spiritual heart. Then that is some the ways of the world, or the flesh, ot the ego "doing God". That is where you have what you describe above

:) Sorry about that. I do tend to pack my posts with a lot of things to consider. I find it helpful to myself to try to explain these things to others. As they say, the best way to know something is to teach or explain it to someone else. I do appreciate your perspectives here, and hope you enjoy this discussion as well.
I find it strange that you don't believe a God is able to write an infallible Book as a guidance for humanity, just as a Father who cares for His children to guide them to the right way of life, and tell them what is wrong and what is right.

The experiences you talk about has never been reported by billions of others whatsoever. Even on this Forum there are many atheists, who never experienced such things.
Why shouldn't God be able to talk to humanity in their own language? Why couldn't God write a Book, in which He speaks to us all? So that everyone have the opportunity to know what God says, instead of leaving them to guesses and imaginations about God?
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
That is so important. Some religions seem to expect their followers to never doubt and to never question the beliefs of their religion. So, automatically, if the beliefs of another person in another religion contradicts theirs, the other person is the one that is wrong. The Baha'is are kind of like that, so how can there really be any true respect and understanding and acceptance of the beliefs of the other person? I don't think there can. They have to feel their beliefs are superior.
There could be some Bahais who are fanatical. But that's not what Bahai Faith teaches to be. Just because there are Bahais who do not follow Bahai Faith fully or correctly, does not mean the origin of Faith is not Godley.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Some religions seem to expect their followers to never doubt and to never question the beliefs of their religion. So, automatically, if the beliefs of another person in another religion contradicts theirs, the other person is the one that is wrong. The Baha'is are kind of like that, so how can there really be any true respect and understanding and acceptance of the beliefs of the other person? I don't think there can. They have to feel their beliefs are superior.
I just returned from a GriefShare group at a local church. This week's session was on Heaven. It was made perfectly clear that "the only way to spend eternity in is to believe in Jesus Christ." That is a direct quote from the video about heaven. It goes without saying that I am the only Baha'i in that group and I am not about to reveal my identity because, even though I believe in Jesus and that Jesus "offered Himself was to sacrifice him as a ransom for the sins and iniquities of all the peoples of the earth" as per Baha'u'llah, that would not be good enough for Christians, since I do not believe that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven.

With a belief like that how can there really be any true respect and understanding and acceptance of the beliefs of the other person? I don't think there can. They have to feel their beliefs are superior.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
However you explain it, we can't all become a Buddha. It doesn't change reality to understand what I consider this errant belief better.

And yet the Buddha himself said everyone can become a Buddha. Everyone Can Become a Buddha.

"And Buddha said that everyone can achieve what he did; everyone can become a Buddha. This is because we all have “Buddha-nature” – the fundamental working materials that enable Buddhahood."The way I state this is this. Everyone is already Enlightened. We just haven't been enlightened to that reality yet. ;) Enlightenment, Awakening, Salvation, is simply the Realization of what we already fully are. So absolutely yes, everyone can become Enlightened, because that is our true Nature. We all came from God, not some other source.
Here is a site that has Baha'i quotes about Buddha. None are from Baha'u'llah. This one is from his son Abdul Baha.

Buddha also established a new religion, and Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues, but their institutions have been entirely destroyed. The beliefs and rites of the Buddhists and Confucianists have not continued in accordance with their fundamental teachings. The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and ceremonials arose and increased until they finally ended in the worship of statues and images . . . So it is with religions; through the passing of time they change from their original foundation, the truth of the Religion of God entirely departs, and the spirit of it does not stay; heresies appear, and it becomes a body without a soul. That is why it is renewed. The meaning is that the Buddhists and Confucianists now worship images and statues. They are entirely heedless of the Oneness of God and believe in imaginary gods like the ancient Greeks. But in the beginning it was not so; there were different principles and other ordinances.​
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p. 165-166​

Where, I wonder, did Abdul Baha get this information? "Established" the oneness of God? And how does Abdul Baha know what the "original" principles were? Now, Baha'is believe the Buddha was a manifestation, but who made that decision if not Baha'u'llah? And, if the Buddha was a manifestation, then he was different. He was a special type of being... someone that supposedly God could talk to. But someone who ordinary people could never be like or attain his level, that of a manifestation. It's their belief. But it goes so very much against what Buddhists believe about their own religion.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I find it strange that you don't believe a God is able to write an infallible Book as a guidance for humanity, just as a Father who cares for His children to guide them to the right way of life, and tell them what is wrong and what is right.
This is a different direction of this discussion, but I can address this as you wish. While I certainly believe God loves the whole of his creation, I think this idea of written texts as the means of communicating his Nature with humanity, is way too narrow and focused, and unrealistic. What if you can't read? What if you don't live near a preacher? What if you live deep in the jungles and have never heard of any of these prophets, or any of their followers who spread their religions. Does God not communicate with them?

And what about those who lived before there were written words? Humans have been humans for hundreds of thousands of years before the invention of writing, and then much later, stories written in texts. What did those homo sapiens do without prophets and scribes for those first 292,000 years before the first written words? Did they all end up in hell because they were eating each others faces off, having no writings to tell them otherwise?

You see, these are all real problems for those who think it is infallible texts that are necessary in order to "be saved". But to point to an answer to this problem, God can speak to the human heart through his Spirit that lives in them. He can speak through nature. He can speak in a myriad of ways. Ink on paper is honestly, the least effective, and least accessible, and least clearly understood. So if that is the medium of choice for God, it's not really a great choice.

I would think your complaint should be about why choose words on a page for teaching us, when it is the least effective?
The experiences you talk about has never been reported by billions of others whatsoever.
It has been reported by a great many people, but a very small minority of people comparatively speaking to the masses. But so what? It's all the same report, even if it's only a relative few. That's not unexpected whatsoever. "Few there are who find it", is what Jesus himself taught. Do you think that it should be a majority thing in order for it to be valid? No one said it's the easy path or the wide gate you enter through. See Matthew 7:14
Even on this Forum there are many atheists, who never experienced such things.
If they had, they'd probably not call themselves an atheist. :) Or at least, they might not call it "God", but some other word that has less baggage. What they wouldn't do though is deny the experience.
Why shouldn't God be able to talk to humanity in their own language?
Isn't this setting your conditions for what God should be doing? "If God wanted us to believe in him, then why wouldn't he just write his name across the sky?" I actually has someone say that to me, sincerely thinking that that would be convincing to the whole world? How about that? Do you think he had a good point? Do you see how your suggestion is similar?

But my point is, if God wanted to communicate, what would that really look like that didn't require scribes and literacy, and access to books, and education, and civilized regions with churches and temples and whatnot? Why wouldn't God choose a better, more universal, more accessible means of speaking to humans everyone, at all times, in all languages, in all cultures, that was not dependent upon such a narrow limited means of communication? Doesn't this make more sense?
Why couldn't God write a Book, in which He speaks to us all?
Why wouldn't God just speak directly to us?
So that everyone have the opportunity to know what God says, instead of leaving them to guesses and imaginations about God?
Why doesn't God just write his name across the sky? Maybe because our ideas of what God should do is flawed?
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
If the words of this illuminate beings is not infallible, then that means they have said a mix of falsehood and truth. That can cause confusion. Thus, how could God leave people with confusions? Unless you say, I don't believe these illuminate people were chosen by God to reveal the truth. That would be understandable. But to say, these illuminate people were chosen by God to show the way, yet, they said false things, I don't understand. You need to elaborate.
That is why I supplement my faith with the scientific method. Whoever has the correct answers gets the cookie. Many people get some of the cookie and just about every prophet should not get a crumb.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
This is a different direction of this discussion, but I can address this as you wish. While I certainly believe God loves the whole of his creation, I think this idea of written texts as the means of communicating his Nature with humanity, is way too narrow and focused, and unrealistic. What if you can't read? What if you don't live near a preacher? What if you live deep in the jungles and have never heard of any of these prophets, or any of their followers who spread their religions. Does God not communicate with them?

And what about those who lived before there were written words? Humans have been humans for hundreds of thousands of years before the invention of writing, and then much later, stories written in texts. What did those homo sapiens do without prophets and scribes for those first 292,000 years before the first written words? Did they all end up in hell because they were eating each others faces off, having no writings to tell them otherwise?

You see, these are all real problems for those who think it is infallible texts that are necessary in order to "be saved". But to point to an answer to this problem, God can speak to the human heart through his Spirit that lives in them. He can speak through nature. He can speak in a myriad of ways. Ink on paper is honestly, the least effective, and least accessible, and least clearly understood. So if that is the medium of choice for God, it's not really a great choice.

I would think your complaint should be about why choose words on a page for teaching us, when it is the least effective?

It has been reported by a great many people, but a very small minority of people comparatively speaking to the masses. But so what? It's all the same report, even if it's only a relative few. That's not unexpected whatsoever. "Few there are who find it", is what Jesus himself taught. Do you think that it should be a majority thing in order for it to be valid? No one said it's the easy path or the wide gate you enter through. See Matthew 7:14

If they had, they'd probably not call themselves an atheist. :) Or at least, they might not call it "God", but some other word that has less baggage. What they wouldn't do though is deny the experience.

Isn't this setting your conditions for what God should be doing? "If God wanted us to believe in him, then why wouldn't he just write his name across the sky?" I actually has someone say that to me, sincerely thinking that that would be convincing to the whole world? How about that? Do you think he had a good point? Do you see how your suggestion is similar?

But my point is, if God wanted to communicate, what would that really look like that didn't require scribes and literacy, and access to books, and education, and civilized regions with churches and temples and whatnot? Why wouldn't God choose a better, more universal, more accessible means of speaking to humans everyone, at all times, in all languages, in all cultures, that was not dependent upon such a narrow limited means of communication? Doesn't this make more sense?

Why wouldn't God just speak directly to us?

Why doesn't God just write his name across the sky? Maybe because our ideas of what God should do is flawed?
All major religions have Holy Books, or so called the Scriptures. So, this is a fact. But you seem to say, God does not write Books for humanity.
In those Holy Books it says why He does not talk directly to every single person.
That's because not everyone's mirror of Heart is pure enough to reflect the words of God. Only a very rare people known as Messengers of God have such a pure heart that can reflect the words of God into the world. So, the flaw is us, not God. But if we become perfectly pure, then we can also reflect the words of God. But are we? Do you really think we human beings are really that pure souls? Pure soul, means never lie, never fornication, never backbite, never steal, be kind to everyone, be fair and just to everyone, be generous to all, etc. Do you see the people around you as such? The Scriptures say otherwise. It says Everyone is a sinner. Everyone is engaged in worldly matters. Everyone is after materialistic things. So, they don't meet the requirements to reflect the words of God.
It makes sense to me. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
So, you believe whatever Jesus said is infallible as long as it is related to the ways of knowledge of divine. How do you know this for sure?
But when it comes to history Jesus was not infallible? So, for example when He talked about Moses or the events of the past, which was history He made mistakes?
If a prophet says scripture is factually accurate, I know instantly that they have no real knowledge.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
This is a different direction of this discussion, but I can address this as you wish. While I certainly believe God loves the whole of his creation, I think this idea of written texts as the means of communicating his Nature with humanity, is way too narrow and focused, and unrealistic. What if you can't read? What if you don't live near a preacher? What if you live deep in the jungles and have never heard of any of these prophets, or any of their followers who spread their religions. Does God not communicate with them?
Exactly. God’s will is known through nature, for there are more life forms than just us.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I find it strange that you don't believe a God is able to write an infallible Book as a guidance for humanit
In those Holy Books it says why He does not talk directly to every single person.
It makes sense to me. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you.
Societies make their rules. The so-called infallible books reflect only what societies say. For example, your book says that there is one God. This is because the Iranian society, being Muslims, already believed in existence of one God. The Iranian Muslim society also believed women to be inferior to men and LGBTQ being abominations. That is reflected in your book.
What evidence can you provide to prove that a God exists and that he sends prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis? What evidence convinces you that a God talks only through his messengers?
Any belief unsupported by sufficient evidence does not make sense to me.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
All major religions have Holy Books, or so called the Scriptures. So, this is a fact. But you seem to say, God does not write Books for humanity.
In those Holy Books it says why He does not talk directly to every single person.
I think you mistake what the nature of these other scriptures are for these other religions. I do not believe they view them as God writing them. I do not believe they view them as revealed texts in the way you do. They are sacred to be sure, but "infallible" and inerrant are only something that is a much more modern view, and not something that they would see them as in that sense.

And in those other religions texts, it very clearly teaches that you can become Enlightened. So that is direct.
That's because not everyone's mirror of Heart is pure enough to reflect the words of God.
And that's what the Wisdom teachings are about. Clearing those obstacles so that your heart is pure in order to see God. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God". Do you say that cannot be true?
Only a very rare people known as Messengers of God have such a pure heart that can reflect the words of God into the world.
But that is an invitation to everyone to purify their hearts so they too can see God. But what I am hearing from you, is that cannot be. Don't bother. You're not chosen. You can't be Enlightened. This is why I find fault with that view.
So, the flaw is us, not God.
Correct. But if we clear the obstacles, then we can see God.
But if we become perfectly pure, then we can also reflect the words of God.
The word I would use is directly radiate God. Not reflect. But radiate.
But are we? Do you really think we human beings are really that pure souls?
You yourself said that at our core, we are perfect. You said this several posts ago. But in our current state, we have become full of obstacles. And it is true that "narrow is that gate" and few there are that find it, to purify themselves and allow that perfect nature to shine through them. But it is possible for all. Yes.
Pure soul, means never lie, never fornication, never backbite, never steal, be kind to everyone, be fair and just to everyone, be generous to all, etc.
"Love works no ill. Love is the fulfillment of the law". I agree. That is possible for us to do. But are your saying it is not? If so, this is why I find fault with that view.
Do you see the people around you as such? The Scriptures say otherwise. It says Everyone is a sinner. Everyone is engaged in worldly matters. Everyone is after materialistic things. So, they don't meet the requirements to reflect the words of God.
It makes sense to me. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you.
But it is possible to overcome all this. That is the very point of all of it. Do you disagree with that?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
There could be some Bahais who are fanatical. But that's not what Bahai Faith teaches to be. Just because there are Bahais who do not follow Bahai Faith fully or correctly, does not mean the origin of Faith is not Godley.
Why do you call it "fanatical"? I asked this several times... Is there any other religion in the world today that the Baha'is agree with completely and can say that their beliefs and practices are true? Usually, I hear Baha'is say that all of the other religions have been corrupted by people adding things in and by misinterpreting things. So, why wouldn't a Baha'i think that their brand new and uncorrupted teachings aren't superior to the teachings and practices of all the other religions?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Why wouldn't God just speak directly to us?
I always hear Christians say they have God's Holy Spirit in them, and how God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit speaks to their hearts. And... I wouldn't be surprised if some Baha'is feel they can "hear", in a spiritual way, the voice of God guiding them.
The so-called infallible books reflect only what societies say.
Yes, so who wrote the books? People. Infallible people? Or people that maybe were a little bit fallible?
 
Top