Who was Baha'u'llah?

[F1fan]

Just imagine Russia and USA were Bahais. There wouldn't be a chance of war, because Bahai Faith is one throughout the world. But let's say, Russia and USA were Muslims. There is no guarantee there wasn't a war between them. Islam is not one. Christianity is not one. They are all divided sects. So, Baha'i Faith has the potential to unite the world. Other Religions don't, because they did even maintain unity among themselves. Not because they were not from God, but because their teachings and Laws were for people of the past ages. Bahai Faith is revealed for the age of modernity.

There would be inevitable conflict because people like freedom, not to be ruled as robots. How would you Baha'i enforce your rules of peace when there are protests by Mulsims and Christians? If you can't answer this then it illustrates how your idealism is a failure before it happens.

I am not predicting anything because only God knows what the future holds.
I have no idea what will happen to gay citizens, but there is no punishment for what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

You said there would be no more gays, what does that mean? Why are you even suggesting a category of people be eliminated? You try to sound harmless now, but I think your comment illustrates why we can't trust religious authorities anywhere, ever!! You say "God knows" and what stops Baha'i who claim to know what "God wants" to commit a Holocaust against gays?

No, absolutely not. Baha'i belief will never be mandatory., it will always be a choice for people to make.

Then how can you have a Baha'i government? There will be Muslims and Christians who will go on being the majority all over the world, so how will baha'i even get control of any government? It's a pipe dream.

You'd have to ask the Baha'is what good it is doing for them. I am sure they would be glad to answer.

You're one, and you share your life in chaos. Other Baha'i show themselves to be rude and arrogant, and even delusional, so it's been a very bad impression to me, and even other members. Theists often are terrible ambassadors for their religions and they don't realize it.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

There would be inevitable conflict because people like freedom, not to be ruled as robots. How would you Baha'i enforce your rules of peace when there are protests by Mulsims and Christians? If you can't answer this then it illustrates how your idealism is a failure before it happens.

You said there would be no more gays, what does that mean? Why are you even suggesting a category of people be eliminated? You try to sound harmless now, but I think your comment illustrates why we can't trust religious authorities anywhere, ever!! You say "God knows" and what stops Baha'i who claim to know what "God wants" to commit a Holocaust against gays?

Then how can you have a Baha'i government? There will be Muslims and Christians who will go on being the majority all over the world, so how will baha'i even get control of any government? It's a pipe dream.

You're one, and you share your life in chaos. Other Baha'i show themselves to be rude and arrogant, and even delusional, so it's been a very bad impression to me, and even other members. Theists often are terrible ambassadors for their religions and they don't realize it.

In Bahai Faith, there is freedom of belief. No body is forced to believe in what they don't want.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just imagine Russia and USA were Bahais. There wouldn't be a chance of war, because Bahai Faith is one throughout the world. But let's say, Russia and USA were Muslims. There is no guarantee there wasn't a war between them. Islam is not one. Christianity is not one. They are all divided sects. So, Baha'i Faith has the potential to unite the world. Other Religions don't, because they did even maintain unity among themselves. Not because they were not from God, but because their teachings and Laws were for people of the past ages. Bahai Faith is revealed for the age of modernity.

*WINNER*

 

[Trailblazer]

There would be inevitable conflict because people like freedom, not to be ruled as robots. How would you Baha'i enforce your rules of peace when there are protests by Mulsims and Christians? If you can't answer this then it illustrates how your idealism is a failure before it happens.

@InvestigateTruth said "Just imagine Russia and USA were Baha'is. There wouldn't be a chance of war, because Baha'i Faith is one throughout the world."
I think he meant if they were all Baha'is, in which case there would be no conflict between Russia and the USA, since Baha'is are a unified religion. But if Russia and USA were all Muslims there could be conflict between them since Muslims are not a unified religion, but rather split into sects who disagree with one another.

You said there would be no more gays, what does that mean? Why are you even suggesting a category of people be eliminated? You try to sound harmless now, but I think your comment illustrates why we can't trust religious authorities anywhere, ever!! You say "God knows" and what stops Baha'i who claim to know what "God wants" to commit a Holocaust against gays?

I never said that gays would be eliminated! My implication is that there might be fewer practicing gays in the future because more people would 'choose' not to have gay sex. This could happen if almost everyone in the world embraced the Baha'i Faith because people would 'finally realize' that having sex is not that important, and it is primarily for procreation. Of course that is hard to even imagine now, with the standards for sexual behavior as they are at present.

Then how can you have a Baha'i government? There will be Muslims and Christians who will go on being the majority all over the world, so how will baha'i even get control of any government? It's a pipe dream.

As long as Muslims and Christians are the majority, there can be no Baha'i government, but in the future if Baha'is became the majority, they would not be trying to get control of the government.

You're one, and you share your life in chaos. Other Baha'i show themselves to be rude and arrogant, and even delusional, so it's been a very bad impression to me, and even other members. Theists often are terrible ambassadors for their religions and they don't realize it.

My life is not in chaos. Of course I have to make an adjustment having lost my husband suddenly after 37 years of marriage, but I have held it together quite well considering the life situation I am in, and I am emotionally and financially stable. I can take care of myself, my eight cats and three houses, since I always took care of everything when I was married.

Even if there was one rude and arrogant Baha'i on this forum, that does not represent Baha'is as a whole. I would never judge atheism by one rude and arrogant atheist. That is unjust and it is also fallacious thinking.

 

[F1fan]

@InvestigateTruth said "Just imagine Russia and USA were Baha'is. There wouldn't be a chance of war, because Baha'i Faith is one throughout the world."
I think he meant if they were all Baha'is, in which case there would be no conflict between Russia and the USA, since Baha'is are a unified religion. But if Russia and USA were all Muslims there could be conflict between them since Muslims are not a unified religion, but rather split into sects who disagree with one another.

Why assume people wouldn’t still disagree and split? Religion shows us that people disagree regardless of the ideology. So totally unrealistic. Even among Baha’i there’s disagreement over dropping the anti gay beliefs but those in power don’t want to.

I never said that gays would be eliminated! My implication is that there might be fewer practicing gays in the future because more people would 'choose' not to have gay sex. This could happen if almost everyone in the world embraced the Baha'i Faith because people would 'finally realize' that having sex is not that important, and it is primarily for procreation. Of course that is hard to even imagine now, with the standards for sexual behavior as they are at present.

Totally unrealistic and naive. Why would you think gays would adopt a religion that prejudices against them? Im not gay but i would refuse to accept Baha’i due to its prejudices and assumptions of any god existing as it applies policies.

As long as Muslims and Christians are the majority, there can be no Baha'i government, but in the future if Baha'is became the majority, they would not be trying to get control of the government.

How are you Bahai getting rid of Muslims and Christians? Theocracies show intolerance when there is no check on power. There’s no reason to trust people who are Baha’i any more than Muslims or Christians. Your religion has no lessons on self-checking vices.

My life is not in chaos. Of course I have to make an adjustment having lost my husband suddenly after 37 years of marriage, but I have held it together quite well considering the life situation I am in, and I am emotionally and financially stable. I can take care of myself, my eight cats and three houses, since I always took care of everything when I was married

You have have posted numerous threads about personal issues that I felt were inappropriate and revealing. To me they gave an impression of instability. Other Bahai don’t give me reasons to trust them with political power. Its a small sample but my impression is negative, mostly due to the homophobia.

Even if there was one rude and arrogant Baha'i on this forum, that does not represent Baha'is as a whole. I would never judge atheism by one rude and arrogant atheist. That is unjust and it is also fallacious thinking.

I have no other examples to go by. There are 4-5 Baha’i and the only one that I have a positive opinion of limits posting about Baha’i. My humanist mindset finds any unwarranted prejudice an ideological failure. The Bahai members are not willing to tolerate gays and select their religion over human rights. That makes bahai unfit for any political power. It can’t be trusted.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Baha'i Faith has the potential to unite the world

What is uniting the world? One world government? The absence of war? This sounds airy-fairy to me. A reasonable goal should be maximizing mutual tolerance and social opportunity. This is already the humanist agenda, which is the sole bastion in the struggle against "theologies of despair and ideologies of violence" and which

Also, I would object to a world government in the image of Baha'ism, which is too religious, contentious, and bigoted.

@Kelly of the Phoenix, I may be wrong, but I sense a mean spiritedness about you, that goes beyond whatever @Windwalker has said. What's going on with you? I sense no thoughtful consideration of what I have said, but just short remarks that belittle whatever I have said. I don't want to address what you have said, not because I can't defend myself, but I want to be exposed to your comments that tear down as little as possible. Do you have a need to tear down the Baha'is or the Baha'i Faith? Do you have a hostility towards religious faith in general and want to tear it down? Do you like to tear other people's point of view in general?

There is nothing mean-spirited about her. This is all you. This is what you bring to the forum - a sense that debate is attack. You don't understand the culture of critical thought and debate.

I have difficulty being here where debate is the norm. I get caught up in it. I prefer to come to points of agreement though consultation.

Debate (dialectic) is how differences of opinion are resolved among critical thinkers. It a constructive, cooperative process, not a war.

This isn't working. I get too caught up debating, and I have a temper.

Maybe you should either give some serious consideration to what you are being told here and adjust your attitude, or avoid critical thinkers, which will be difficult to do on RF unless you take refuge in DIRs, although most of those don't get more than 2 or 3 responses, and you have Baha'i only options elsewhere off-site as well. So choose what you like and accept it without complaining about people you don't understand. If you come to mixed forums and encounter critical thinkers evaluating arguments, and you can't stop feeling attacked, maybe you can stop complaining about it rather than expecting others to accommodate your limitations. It's your choice.

There is no need to fight to win as long as we can leave our ego out

Critical thinkers do. This isn't a fight or about ego, at least not from the critical thinker's perspective.

These discussions remind me of somebody unfamiliar with sports who sees teams competing and mistakes it for hostility despite there being zero anger on the field motivating the sparring.

Whether anyone can present a case to you that proves to you that God exists has no bearing as to whether God exists or not.

I hope you don't mind if I convert that word to something more meaningful when I see it in the future, such as demonstrate with evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which can be done in many cases where proof doesn't apply as with the theory of evolution. I'm tired of explaining this, and you're probably tired of ignoring the explanation and behaving as if you've never seen it before. No theist can meet that standard, either, nor come close to it, which is enough to disregard the claim.

The mere logical possibility of a god existing is meaningless absent significant supportive evidence. It's not enough for the critical thinker to seriously consider the notion further.

I am not predicting anything

Who wrote this, then? "By the time this becomes a Baha'i government there probably won't be any gays." Let me guess - for you, that's not predicting (and also not a claim), because you used the word "probably," or because it lacked something that you think is necessary to use those words. I'm also wondering why you think there won't be any gays in the future.

Even if there was one rude and arrogant Baha'i on this forum, that does not represent Baha'is as a whole.

The Baha'i are the most homogeneous denomination represented on RF. You are an outlier at times, the I can't tell the others apart, since they all want to be truth-something and write more or less the same opinions in the same words, including the emotional reactions and bigotries.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're right. I was wrong. I've heard Baha'is I've talked to on Discord refer to their own religion as deistic at times. Deism implies that a God exists but doesn't interact with people. Your God does interact with people in the form of episodic messengers, so you're right, it really isn't deism. It's probably closer to agnostic theism instead, believing that God interacts with the Universe but is unknowable in many ways. You know your religion better than me and sometimes I confuse deism with agnosticism given the fact that they are similar - a God that does not interact with the Universe would similarly be unknowable to people. I think many Baha'is would reject the idea that they are agnostic but let me remind you there is agnostic atheism and agnostic theism, not everybody who is agnostic is also atheist, although a large portion of them are.

An agnostic theist believes in the existence of one or more gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.

Agnostic theism​

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Agnostic_theism

Baha'is are not agnostic theists because Baha'is believe that we can know the Attributes and the Will of God through the Messengers of God.
What we cannot ever know is the Essence of God.

The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable.
God in the Baháʼí Faith

Would you agree that a portion of the Baha'i Faith practices in varying degrees some amount of agnostic beliefs? And, after we die, is God still unknowable to us in the spiritual world, or do we understand Him completely? I'd like to understand better the Baha'i view points of God better due to my natural inclination to really like your religion.

'Only' in the sense that the Essence of God is unknowable are Baha'is agnostic.

Nobody can know for certain what will happen to us after we die and enter the spiritual world, but I believe that the Essence of God will remain unknowable, even through His Prophets. We can experience God's spirit in this world through the Prophets, and that is how we will experience God's spirit in the spiritual world. The BIG difference is that in the spiritual world we will be able to see the Prophets whereas we cannot see them in this world. We can only believe they existed. The basis of my belief is from the Baha'i Writings.

"We will have experience of God's spirit through His Prophets in the next world, but God is too great for us to know without this Intermediary. The Prophets know God, but how is more than our human minds can grasp. We believe we may attain in the next world to seeing the Prophets. There is certainly a future life. Heaven and hell are conditions within our own beings."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, November 14, 1947)

Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What is uniting the world? One world government? The absence of war? This sounds airy-fairy to me. A reasonable goal should be maximizing mutual tolerance and social opportunity. This is already the humanist agenda, which is the sole bastion in the struggle against "theologies of despair and ideologies of violence" and which

Also, I would object to a world government in the image of Baha'ism, which is too religious, contentious, and bigoted.

There is nothing mean-spirited about her. This is all you. This is what you bring to the forum - a sense that debate is attack. You don't understand the culture of critical thought and debate.

Debate (dialectic) is how differences of opinion are resolved among critical thinkers. It a constructive, cooperative process, not a war.

Maybe you should either give some serious consideration to what you are being told here and adjust your attitude, or avoid critical thinkers, which will be difficult to do on RF unless you take refuge in DIRs, although most of those don't get more than 2 or 3 responses, and you have Baha'i only options elsewhere off-site as well. So choose what you like and accept it without complaining about people you don't understand. If you come to mixed forums and encounter critical thinkers evaluating arguments, and you can't stop feeling attacked, maybe you can stop complaining about it rather than expecting others to accommodate your limitations. It's your choice.

Critical thinkers do. This isn't a fight or about ego, at least not from the critical thinker's perspective.

These discussions remind me of somebody unfamiliar with sports who sees teams competing and mistakes it for hostility despite there being zero anger on the field motivating the sparring.

I hope you don't mind if I convert that word to something more meaningful when I see it in the future, such as demonstrate with evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which can be done in many cases where proof doesn't apply as with the theory of evolution. I'm tired of explaining this, and you're probably tired of ignoring the explanation and behaving as if you've never seen it before. No theist can meet that standard, either, nor come close to it, which is enough to disregard the claim.

The mere logical possibility of a god existing is meaningless absent significant supportive evidence. It's not enough for the critical thinker to seriously consider the notion further.

Who wrote this, then? "By the time this becomes a Baha'i government there probably won't be any gays." Let me guess - for you, that's not predicting (and also not a claim), because you used the word "probably," or because it lacked something that you think is necessary to use those words. I'm also wondering why you think there won't be any gays in the future.

The Baha'i are the most homogeneous denomination represented on RF. You are an outlier at times, the I can't tell the others apart, since they all want to be truth-something and write more or less the same opinions in the same words, including the emotional reactions and bigotries.

The idea of world government that comes from Bahai writing is not necessarily a Bahai world government. But a secular world government that all other countries would obey this world Government. This would make the world much more fair and just. Just see now, how every country is primarily concerned with their own prosperity. But a world government is not biased towards any particular nation(s). Rather all resources of the earth, being Metals, oil, etc are equally belong to all people of the earth. There would not be war either, or would be minimized greatly, because it is one main world Government.
But the idea of unity, is a little different in my understanding than just a world government. It more has to do with humanity spiritual education. For example right now, USA is one country, and has one Government. But the people of USA are not completely united. There is still racism. There is still political sectarianism. There is still sexism. Why? Because there is a lack of spirituality. Everyone is after ego. The Bahai Faith has the potential to provide this spiritual education. The evidence of it is, within the worldwide Bahai community, it was successful to remove these disunity.

 

[Windwalker]

Just imagine Russia and USA were Bahais. There wouldn't be a chance of war, because Bahai Faith is one throughout the world. But let's say, Russia and USA were Muslims. There is no guarantee there wasn't a war between them. Islam is not one. Christianity is not one. They are all divided sects. So, Baha'i Faith has the potential to unite the world. Other Religions don't, because they did not even maintain unity among themselves. Not because they were not from God, but because their teachings and Laws were for people of the past ages. Bahai Faith is revealed for the age of modernity.

Are you unaware, that lack any organized religion, that schisms and factions have arisen within the Baha'i faith as well? The response was not love, but excommunication. Or another word for that is the suppression of voices of descent. So authoritarian rule, in other words? You may call that global peace, but those whose voices are forcibly silenced wouldn't agree with that.

"Those that have been excommunicated have consistently protested against the majority group and, in some cases, claimed that the excommunicated represent the true Baháʼí Faith and the majority are Covenant-breakers.[10][11] Some Baháʼís have claimed that there have been no divisions in the Baháʼí Faith, or that none will survive or become a threat to the main body of Baháʼís.[4][12] From 2000-2020, twenty individuals were expelled by the Baháʼí Administration for Covenant-breaking.[13]"​

​

Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's nothing to be ashamed of. Any human organization has divisions. It's how that organization responds to them that says something about them. Take for instance the history of the Spanish Inquisition, as one extreme example of the end of excommunications.

But let's be clear about this one thing, it's not all love and unity.....

 

[Trailblazer]

Why assume people wouldn’t still disagree and split? Religion shows us that people disagree regardless of the ideology. So totally unrealistic. Even among Baha’i there’s disagreement over dropping the anti gay beliefs buy those in power don’t want to.

Yes, it is unrealistic that people are going to agree about everything, whether they are believers or nonbelievers. Baha'is disagree about certain things, but we have the Writings and the Covenant of Baha'u'llah that binds us together, and we are told not to argue but rather to consult with each other and try to find points of agreement.

Totally unrealistic and naive. Why would you think gays would adopt a religion that prejudices against them? Im not gay but i would refuse to accept Baha’i due to its prejudices and assumptions of any god existing as it applies policies.

I have no idea what is going to happen in the distant future so there is really no point surmising. Only God can see into the future.

How are you Bahai getting rid of Muslims and Christians? Theocracies show intolerance when there is no check on power. There’s no reason to trust people who are Baha’i any more than Muslims or Christians. Your religion has no lessons on self-checking vices.

Baha'is have no desire to 'get rid of' Christians and Muslims. People can only choose to become Baha'is at their own behest.
There’s no reason 'for you' to trust people who are Baha’i any more than Muslims or Christians, since you are not a believer so you trust no religion..

You have have posted numerous threads about personal issues that I felt were inappropriate and revealing. To me they gave an impression of instability. Other Bahai don’t give me reasons to trust them with political power. Its a small sample but my impression is negative, mostly due to the homophobia.

I don't care what your 'impression' is. I have a clean bill of mental health from the mental health professionals. The only reason I see a counselor is to help process my grief and to help me decide where I am going to go from here.

A Baha'i Law that prohibits homosexual sex is not homophobia by any stretch of the imagination since Baha'is do not have a dislike of or prejudice against gay people and we do not have negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality simply because that Law exists. There is also a Baha'i Law that prohibits any sex out of wedlock, so this is about sexual behavior, not about the people.

homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
what is homophobia - Google Search

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT).
Homophobia - Wikipedia

I have no other examples to go by. There are 4-5 Baha’i and the only one that I have a positive opinion of limits posting about Baha’i. My humanist mindset finds any unwarranted prejudice an ideological failure. The Bahai members are not willing to tolerate gays and select their religion over human rights. That makes bahai unfit for any political power. It can’t be trusted.

Your 'personal opinion' of certain Baha'is does not define those Baha'is, not any more than my personal opinion about certain atheists defines those atheists.

The Baha'i administration cannot change the written Laws of Baha'u'llah just because some people don't like them, although it is possible that the UHJ could change some of the rulings in the future. Meanwhile, the Baha'i Faith tolerates gays as evidenced by the fact that there are gays enrolled in the religion. Likewise we tolerate Baha'is who have sex out of wedlock, and I am sure there are many of them. The Baha'i administration does not make it their business what people do behind closed doors, that is their own business. Only if people are flagrant in letting their sexual behavior be known publicly does it become an issue for a Baha'i, and even then the most that can happen to them is that they might lose their voting rights.

One's sexual behavior is only between themselves and God and I don't believe anyone will be judged by God for homosexual behavior. It is a person's character as a whole and how they treat other people that really matters.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Are you unaware, that lack any organized religion, that schisms and factions have arisen within the Baha'i faith as well? The response was not love, but excommunication. Or another word for that is the suppression of voices of descent. So authoritarian rule, in other words? You may call that global peace, but those whose voices are forcibly silenced wouldn't agree with that.

"Those that have been excommunicated have consistently protested against the majority group and, in some cases, claimed that the excommunicated represent the true Baháʼí Faith and the majority are Covenant-breakers.[10][11] Some Baháʼís have claimed that there have been no divisions in the Baháʼí Faith, or that none will survive or become a threat to the main body of Baháʼís.[4][12] From 2000-2020, twenty individuals were expelled by the Baháʼí Administration for Covenant-breaking.[13]"​

​

Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's nothing to be ashamed of. Any human organization has divisions. It's how that organization responds to them that says something about them. Take for instance the history of the Spanish Inquisition, as one extreme example of the end of excommunications.

But let's be clear about this one thing, it's not all love and unity.....

I am aware that there were attempts, but was never succeeded.
You know why they did not succeed?
Because in Bahai Faith there is something called, the Lesser Covenant. Baha'u'llah wrote that after He leaves this world, all of His followers must turn toward Abdulbaha. Those who did not follow this written covenant, were rightly called covenant breakers.
In Christianity there is no such a covenant. Jesus did not say, whoever believes in Him, after He leaves, they must all follow and obey Peter, or whoever.

 

[F1fan]

The idea of world government that comes from Bahai writing is not necessarily a Bahai world government. But a secular world government that all other countries would obey this world Government. This would make the world much more fair and just. Just see now, how every country is primarily concerned with their own prosperity. But a world government is not biased towards any particular nation(s). Rather all resources of the earth, being Metals, oil, etc are equally belong to all people of the earth. There would not be war either, or would be minimized greatly, because it is one main world Government.
But the idea of unity, is a little different in my understanding than just a world government. It more has to do with humanity spiritual education. For example right now, USA is one country, and has one Government. But the people of USA are not completely united. There is still racism. There is still political sectarianism. There is still sexism. Why? Because there is a lack of spirituality. Everyone is after ego. The Bahai Faith has the potential to provide this spiritual education. The evidence of it is, within the worldwide Bahai community, it was successful to remove these disunity.

This is naive. Why would other world nations need to obey the rules of a world government if they are capable of cooperation in a peaceful way already? How would you enforce peace on a rebellious nation that starts to produce weapons to attack neighbors? The only way to have global peace is citizens electing peaceful and rational leaders. As we see in the USA there are many ideological citizens who will vote for unfit leaders like Trump. Or even Bush/Cheney. Had Gore been declared the winner I doubt the USA would have gone to war in the Middle East.

The problem is not governments. The problem is irrational citizens.

 

[Windwalker]

I am aware that there were attempts, but was never succeeded.
You know why they did not succeed?
Because in Bahai Faith there is something called, the Lesser Covenant. Baha'u'llah wrote that after He leaves this world, all of His followers must turn toward Abdulbaha.

But according to this article, even after the schism between Abdulabaha and his brother vying for leadership, there have been others which are not resolved by what you mentioned. From the same article:

Later, Shoghi Effendi faced opposition from his family, as well as some individual Baháʼís. When Shoghi Effendi passed in 1957, there was no clear successor, and the Hands of the Cause led a transition to the Universal House of Justice, elected in 1963. This transition was opposed by Mason Remey, who claimed to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi in 1960, but was excommunicated by Hands of the Cause because his claim had no basis in authoritative Baháʼí writings.[8] Other, more modern attempts at schism have come from opposition to the Universal House of Justice and attempts to reform or change doctrine.[9]​

In Christianity there is no such a covenant. Jesus did not say, whoever believes in Him, after He leaves, they must all follow and obey Peter, or whoever.

You don't know the history of Christianity then. The Roman Catholic Church claims such support from scripture and a direct line from Peter to the bishops of Rome. This is known as the doctrine of Apostolic Succession:

In Catholic theology, the doctrine of apostolic succession is that the apostolic tradition – including apostolic teaching, preaching, and authority – is handed down from the college of apostles to the college of bishops through the laying on of hands, as a permanent office in the Church.​

​

Here's the thing about that. It's all just organizational politics. I don't believe the church, or any governing body of a religious organization has a monopoly on God. Religions do not own God. And it is my belief that Jesus' entire mission was to say exactly that.

He did not come to start a new religion. His "church" transcended religious boundaries. Yours on the other hand rests it fully in the hands of a group of governing powers, and excommunicates those who disagree with it. That is hardly going to work for a "universal religion". The Catholic church tried that already.

 

[CG Didymus]

To a rational mind there has to be substantial evidence for belief to be earned. The more fanyastic the idea, the more evidence is needed.

Still Baha'is claim there is substantial evidence for what they believe... along with Born-Again Christians and any other religion and cult that thinks is has The Truth. It's fine for them. I'm sure they get a lot out of their religious beliefs. But too many, or most, or maybe all of those types of religions also want their followers to go preach, teach, or somehow make converts. Then it's our problem too. They claim it's true. All we've been asking is for proof and evidence... that is of the tangible kind.

 

[CG Didymus]

Are you predicting the USA will have a Baha'i theocracy?

And what will happen to the gay citizens? Your comment sounds ominously familiar. Like 1940's Germany familiar.

How would there be a Baha'i government? Such a government would by definition make Baha'i belief mandatory.

What good is it doing the Baha'i as it is? I don't see any advantage of those in this community.

I really wonder if their "government" even works for Baha'is? They have Local Spiritual Assemblies in every town or city that has nine or more adult Baha'is. If there's more than nine, then nine of them get elected to serve on the Assembly. I get the feeling that some people never get voted on. Is there something wrong with them? Aren't they smart enough or loving and just enough?

But then... what do Baha'is do in big cities where there are possible hundreds of Baha'is? These nine know enough to run a large community? Then every nineteen days they have a gathering. Where do they meet? What percentage of the Baha'is in the city actually show up and participate?

Now... what if in the future a city of several million were all Baha'is? Who are the nine that are going to get elected? Then, if that would ever happen, they'd have to have people to enforce the Baha'is laws. Who's going to run the enforcement agency? Pretty soon, I think they'd have just one big bureaucracy. How's it going to be different than what happened with Christianity and Islam when they got control and ruled over people and countries? I'm sure Baha'is have answers, but what are they? They're too busy worrying about "proving" there is a God to Atheists.

 

[F1fan]

I really wonder if their "government" even works for Baha'is? They have Local Spiritual Assemblies in every town or city that has nine or more adult Baha'is. If there's more than nine, then nine of them get elected to serve on the Assembly. I get the feeling that some people never get voted on. Is there something wrong with them? Aren't they smart enough or loving and just enough?

But then... what do Baha'is do in big cities where there are possible hundreds of Baha'is? These nine know enough to run a large community? Then every nineteen days they have a gathering. Where do they meet? What percentage of the Baha'is in the city actually show up and participate?

Now... what if in the future a city of several million were all Baha'is? Who are the nine that are going to get elected? Then, if that would ever happen, they'd have to have people to enforce the Baha'is laws. Who's going to run the enforcement agency? Pretty soon, I think they'd have just one big bureaucracy. How's it going to be different than what happened with Christianity and Islam when they got control and ruled over people and countries? I'm sure Baha'is have answers, but what are they? They're too busy worrying about "proving" there is a God to Atheists.

My impression of Baha'i are an insignificant group that wants to be thought of as on the cutting edge of moral duty and global leadership. Anyone who is in a position of social management has to be rooted in reality, because that is the only way they can make sound judgments. Look at DeSantis and his poll numbers dclining, and this can be attributed to his dumb anti-woke agenda. He's not being a governor, he's on an extremist mission. Given some of the recent comments by Baha'i in this thread that have zero chance of ever happening they aren't operating realistically, and illustrate how they can't be trusted to be in charge of much at all beyond their local assembly meeting.

 

[PearlSeeker]

And yet he walked through walls. And yet he didn't appear as himself when he talked with others, they didn't recognize him. They spent the whole day walking and talking with him, and not until the evening until he broke bread with them to they know it was Jesus. He went up from the ground into heaven. And so forth.

Now while one can say there was some "appearance" of Jesus in some fashion or another, clearly this was not a resuscitated corpse. Human bodies don't appear and disappear. They don't walk into rooms through locked doors. They don't change their appearances. They don't levitate. And furthermore, Paul claims to have seen the risen Christ, but that was not a corporeal form. He saw Light and heard a voice. That is not a body walking around after having be revived out of a state of death.

Early Christians debated amongst themselves exactly in what way was Jesus resurrected. These are a few of the reasons they would have.

Clearly, it is spiritual in nature primarily. So what I said about applying ideas of historic fact to something like this, which would be pertinent if were are talking about a purely material reality, is a bit short sighted and missing the actual point, which is about faith, not facts.

The tomb was empty, remember? But the body wasn"t just resuscitated. It was the "glorified body" or "spiritual body" (transformed body):

In light of 1 Cor 15 theologians traditionally teach that the characteristic qualities of the glorified body are four: impassibility— "What is sown in corruption rises in incorruption"; clarity—"what is sown in dishonor rises in glory"; agility— "what is sown in weakness rises in power"; and subtilty—"what is sown a natural body rises a spiritual body." (Encyclopedia.com)​

​

If it were just dreams and visions/hallucinations then the resurrection didn't happen and their faith was in vain.

You are right about historical fact. History as science as we know it today doesn't treat miraculous events as facts. Resurrection is not scientific history. It's religious history/testimony.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Christians believe their religion is superior to all other religions only because Jesus rose from the dead.

No, this is not the reason. Christians see Jesus Christ as the fullness of God's revealation to man:

The full and definitive stage of God’s revelation is accomplished in his Word made flesh, Jesus Christ, the mediator and fullness of Revelation. He, being the only-begotten Son of God made man, is the perfect and definitive Word of the Father. In the sending of the Son and the gift of the Spirit, Revelation is now fully complete, although the faith of the Church must gradually grasp its full significance over the course of centuries. (Compendium)​

​

Death (sacrifice) of Jesus is incomplete without resurrection.

The Resurrection is the climax of the Incarnation. It confirms the divinity of Christ and all the things which he did and taught. It fulfills all the divine promises made for us. Furthermore the risen Christ, the conqueror of sin and death, is the principle of our justification and our Resurrection. It procures for us now the grace of filial adoption which is a real share in the life of the only begotten Son. At the end of time he will raise up our bodies. (Compendium)​

 

[Windwalker]

You are right about historical fact. History as science as we know it today doesn't treat miraculous events as facts. Resurrection is not scientific history. It's religious history/testimony.

As I said at the outset, this is the Jesus of Faith, not the Jesus of history. There is a difference between the theological view, and the historical view. I support both. They need not be at odds with each other.

As the scholar from the Jesus seminar said to me of the Nativity, "If it didn't happen, it should have." That captures the meaning of the above.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, this is not the reason. Christians see Jesus Christ as the fullness of God's revealation to man:

The full and definitive stage of God’s revelation is accomplished in his Word made flesh, Jesus Christ, the mediator and fullness of Revelation. He, being the only-begotten Son of God made man, is the perfect and definitive Word of the Father. In the sending of the Son and the gift of the Spirit, Revelation is now fully complete, although the faith of the Church must gradually grasp its full significance over the course of centuries. (Compendium)​

​

Death (sacrifice) of Jesus is incomplete without resurrection.

The Resurrection is the climax of the Incarnation. It confirms the divinity of Christ and all the things which he did and taught. It fulfills all the divine promises made for us. Furthermore the risen Christ, the conqueror of sin and death, is the principle of our justification and our Resurrection. It procures for us now the grace of filial adoption which is a real share in the life of the only begotten Son. At the end of time he will raise up our bodies. (Compendium)​

Yes, I know that this is what Christians believe, but I do not agree with it. Moreover, I consider it an irrational and arrogant belief, which is why I could never be a Christian, even if the Baha'i Faith never existed, in which case I would probably be an agnostic, since no other religions make sense to me either.