Who was Baha'u'llah?

[Windwalker]

because only Abdulbaha's interpretation is considered infallible.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you argue that his interpretation of the Creation story that humans have always been humans and did not evolve from any earlier animal species was just his opinion and it was okay for him to be wrong about that?

I recall that other Baha'i follower insistent that the science was wrong because Abdulabaha's interpretations were infallible, or something close to that? If his interpretations are considered infallible, is the science wrong then? Humans did not evolve but were created in the form they are now without any evolution from earlier species. That other poster argued tooth and nail that had to be the case because of what Abdulbaha's teachings said.

I don't seem to recall this being addressed. That is a major issue in my mind about the system of belief when it creates a religious belief being at odds with reliable credible science.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you argue that his interpretation of the Creation story that humans have always been humans and did not evolve from any earlier animal species was just his opinion and it was okay for him to be wrong about that?

I recall that other Baha'i follower insistent that the science was wrong because Abdulabaha's interpretations were infallible, or something close to that? If his interpretations are considered infallible, is the science wrong then? Humans did not evolve but were created in the form they are now without any evolution from earlier species. That other poster argued tooth and nail that had to be the case because of what Abdulbaha's teachings said.

I don't seem to recall this being addressed. That is a major issue in my mind about the system of belief when it creates a religious belief being at odds with reliable credible science.

I never said that. Maybe it was someone else.
With regards to evolution, Abdulbaha confirmed it. He never said that human has been always human, in a sense that it did not evolve. He said that, since God is creator, there was no time that He did not have a creation. Human, is the best creation of God, thus, it was never a time when God did not have His best creation. By this best creation He means the Perfect Human, or the Manifestations of God. So, the Manifestations of God has been always the Manifestations of God, even if they looked like a fish. Because what makes them Manifestations of God is their special Soul, not their physical body, so, even if they looked like a fish, He was just the manifestation of God by Soul.

 

[Truthseeker]

Thanks for correcting me.... I was only guessing when I said it means His dispensation, but we still do not know what Baha'u'llah was alluding to in The Kitab-i-Iqan. Maybe @InvestigateTruth or @Truthseeker might know.

In the Bible, and I think maybe in the Qur'an it said Noah lived 950 years. In my opinion, Baha'u'llah was just repeating that according to the knowledge of those back then. He did that sometimes. For instance see this according to Shoghi Effendi from the same book.

It is noteworthy that at both the beginning and end of this section of the Tablet, Bahá'u'lláh indicates that He is quoting "some accounts of the sages". These would have been the historical accounts familiar to the person whom He is addressing in the Tablet. The fact that Bahá'u'lláh makes such statements for the sake of illustrating the spiritual principles that He wishes to convey, does not necessarily mean that He is endorsing their historical accuracy. In this connection it is interesting to note the answer given by the beloved Guardian's secretary on his behalf to a question about the "fourth heaven" mentioned in the Kitáb-i-Íqán. The translation of the passage is as follows:

"As to the ascent of Christ to the "fourth heaven" as revealed in the glorious Book of Íqán, he [the Guardian] stated that the "fourth heaven" is a term used and a belief held by the early astronomers. The followers of the Shí'ah sect likewise held this belief. As the Kitáb-i-Íqán was revealed for the guidance of that sect, this term was used in conformity with the concepts of its followers."
(3 November 1987, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)
The Universal House of Justice, 1995 Oct 22, Compilation on Socrates)

I like to cite this Hidden Word in this connection:

67. O SON OF BEAUTY!
By My spirit and by My favor! By My mercy and by My beauty! All that I have revealed unto thee with the tongue of power, and have written for thee with the pen of might, hath been in accordance with thy capacity and understanding, not with My state and the melody of My voice.
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

 

[Muffled]

I believe nobody knows God personally.

I believe that reveals that you do not know God personally.

 

[Muffled]

This is why critical thinkers are not convinced that any God exists, nor that any believer has any clue of what they think is true. Can either of you present a case that any god exists? No. Then how do you honestly claim to have any knowledge about any version of god? These claims cancel each other out, and non-belief is the rational position.

I believe I can but my experience is that people with closed minds still won't consider what I say.

 

[Muffled]

Were they witnesses of his birth? Him walking on water? Him raising Lazarus from the dead? Healing the lepers? Resurrecting and ascending into the clouds? These aren't normal things. But 2000 years ago, how hard would it have been to say these things happened and to convince people that they did happen?

None of the apostles were at the birth of Jesus. Most likely the information came from the people who were there.
The apostles saw Jesus walk on water and raise Lazarus and heal lepers. They saw the resurrected Jesus and they saw Him ascend. Peter affirmed that none of this was made up. No one from the Odyssey was able to say that. Tacitus was a historian but he lied.

 

[Windwalker]

None of the apostles were at the birth of Jesus. Most likely the information came from the people who were there.

Who was there in the garden with Jesus when he prayed alone? Yet we somehow have knowledge of what was said and what happened when he was alone? Same with being in the desert for 40 days alone. Same for the trial of Jesus, or Jesus before pilate, or Herod. There were no disciples there either. Yet we have a lot of details in the stories.

My point is it's not likely what was written about these things came from those who were there. What then can we say about the nature of these stories? Are they intended to be understood as recorded history, or as something else? How should we be reading them? As dispassionate news reports?

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that reveals that you do not know God personally.

Nobody knows God personally because God is unknowable personally.
God can only be known through His Manifestations such as Jesus and Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

In the Bible, and I think maybe in the Qur'an it said Noah lived 950 years. In my opinion, Baha'u'llah was just repeating that according to the knowledge of those back then. He did that sometimes. For instance see this according to Shoghi Effendi from the same book.

It is noteworthy that at both the beginning and end of this section of the Tablet, Bahá'u'lláh indicates that He is quoting "some accounts of the sages". These would have been the historical accounts familiar to the person whom He is addressing in the Tablet. The fact that Bahá'u'lláh makes such statements for the sake of illustrating the spiritual principles that He wishes to convey, does not necessarily mean that He is endorsing their historical accuracy. In this connection it is interesting to note the answer given by the beloved Guardian's secretary on his behalf to a question about the "fourth heaven" mentioned in the Kitáb-i-Íqán. The translation of the passage is as follows:

"As to the ascent of Christ to the "fourth heaven" as revealed in the glorious Book of Íqán, he [the Guardian] stated that the "fourth heaven" is a term used and a belief held by the early astronomers. The followers of the Shí'ah sect likewise held this belief. As the Kitáb-i-Íqán was revealed for the guidance of that sect, this term was used in conformity with the concepts of its followers."
(3 November 1987, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)
The Universal House of Justice, 1995 Oct 22, Compilation on Socrates)

I like to cite this Hidden Word in this connection:

67. O SON OF BEAUTY!
By My spirit and by My favor! By My mercy and by My beauty! All that I have revealed unto thee with the tongue of power, and have written for thee with the pen of might, hath been in accordance with thy capacity and understanding, not with My state and the melody of My voice.
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

I knew you'd have the answer since you actually study the Writings, unlike me.

 

[Windwalker]

I never said that. Maybe it was someone else.
With regards to evolution, Abdulbaha confirmed it. He never said that human has been always human, in a sense that it did not evolve. He said that, since God is creator, there was no time that He did not have a creation. Human, is the best creation of God, thus, it was never a time when God did not have His best creation. By this best creation He means the Perfect Human, or the Manifestations of God. So, the Manifestations of God has been always the Manifestations of God, even if they looked like a fish. Because what makes them Manifestations of God is their special Soul, not their physical body, so, even if they looked like a fish, He was just the manifestation of God by Soul.

Would you say then that we should consider that fish were/are a human species historically speaking? I had to do a little digging to find out the basis of that other poster's insistence that while evolution may be true, humans have always existed as humans from the beginning, and while they may have evolved, they were still humans. He was insistent upon this because of the words spoken by Abdulbaha, which I need to find myself here: Are We Truly Descended from Apes?

Baha’is believe that science and religion agree—so the Baha’i teachings have a unique and very science-friendly perspective on human evolution. They maintain that although human beings at one time certainly took the form of an “ape-like creature,” our uniqueness, our heritage and our spiritual destiny is much more than that of any animal, either now or in the dim past. Abdu’l-Baha pointed out, in the book Some Answered Questions, that human evolution certainly occurred, but that the human species has always been human:​

…as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period — in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species — that is, man — and has gradually evolved from one form to another. – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 193.​

​

This is clearly an error of understanding the science. The human species only became a species by evolving from another animal species into the human species. They did not begin as humans, as he said above. That suddenly they appeared as bipedal hominids one day without having evolved into such from a ascension from earlier species.

What he was attempting to address in the day and age in which he lived, was the relatively new knowledge that there were other human species besides just homosapiens. While he acknowledges other human species, such as neanderthal and cro magnons, he explains that whatever species of humans came before us, they were always human, just as a human embryo is always a human. They were created as humans. They did not evolve from fish.

That is what that other poster was drawing from, and rightly so, if we are to assume Abduhbaha as an infallibe source. What you said above appears to be how you are trying to make what Abdhuhbaha said try to fit into the science we know today? Or were those things he said himself later on which you can provide direct citations for?

Again, are you willing to say that we should speak of a tetrapod as a human species? What about the ancient sea sponge? All animal species are linked to that as the first animal life form, or "Eve" if you will. Are you willing to call that sponge a human species in order to make it fit into this idea that humans began as humans, even as a fish?

 

[F1fan]

I believe I can but my experience is that people with closed minds still won't consider what I say.

You don't seem very confident as you don't even try to show us what you have. That's not our problem, it's your lack of confidence.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Would you say then that we should consider that fish were/are a human species historically speaking? I had to do a little digging to find out the basis of that other poster's insistence that while evolution may be true, humans have always existed as humans from the beginning, and while they may have evolved, they were still humans. He was insistent upon this because of the words spoken by Abdulbaha, which I need to find myself here: Are We Truly Descended from Apes?

Baha’is believe that science and religion agree—so the Baha’i teachings have a unique and very science-friendly perspective on human evolution. They maintain that although human beings at one time certainly took the form of an “ape-like creature,” our uniqueness, our heritage and our spiritual destiny is much more than that of any animal, either now or in the dim past. Abdu’l-Baha pointed out, in the book Some Answered Questions, that human evolution certainly occurred, but that the human species has always been human:​

…as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period — in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species — that is, man — and has gradually evolved from one form to another. – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 193.​

​

This is clearly an error of understanding the science. The human species only became a species by evolving from another animal species into the human species. They did not begin as humans, as he said above. That suddenly they appeared as bipedal hominids one day without having evolved into such from a ascension from earlier species.

What he was attempting to address in the day and age in which he lived, was the relatively new knowledge that there were other human species besides just homosapiens. While he acknowledges other human species, such as neanderthal and cro magnons, he explains that whatever species of humans came before us, they were always human, just as a human embryo is always a human. They were created as humans. They did not evolve from fish.

That is what that other poster was drawing from, and rightly so, if we are to assume Abduhbaha as an infallibe source. What you said above appears to be how you are trying to make what Abdhuhbaha said try to fit into the science we know today? Or were those things he said himself later on which you can provide direct citations for?

Again, are you willing to say that we should speak of a tetrapod as a human species? What about the ancient sea sponge? All animal species are linked to that as the first animal life form, or "Eve" if you will. Are you willing to call that sponge a human species in order to make it fit into this idea that humans began as humans, even as a fish?

In Bahai view what makes a specie human, is the soul or spirit. As the science has no way to know about soul or spirit, therefore it cannot disprove or prove, if there were some specific fish or whatever specie that had human soul. The science tells us, this human body, was as a result of evolution, which started from very primitive species. But it cannot know if the spirit of some of those species were human spirit, because spirit is non-materialistic thing.

In Bahai view Human Spirit is different from animals souls. Human spirit continues to live on after death, but animal souls end after death of their body.

 

[Windwalker]

In Bahai view what makes a specie human, is the soul or spirit. As the science has no way to know about soul or spiritual, it cannot disprove or prove, if there were some specific fish or whatever specie that had human soul. The science tells us, this human body, was as a result of evolution, which started from very primitive species. But it cannot know if the spirit of some of those species were human spirit, because spirit is non-materialistic thing.

In Bahai view Human Spirit is different from animals souls. Human spirit continues to live on after death, but animal souls end after death of their body.

You speak of this as though it were a uniform official view. Yet the link I provided you shows a different opinion on this, citing Abadualla as the authoritative source that this has to do with biology, and not a spiritual nature. The reference to embryos is biological, as is the reference to "species".

As far the soul or spirit goes, there is no way to also say that the homosapiens biological species is the only animal species to possess a soul or spirit. Ask any dog owner if they see their dog as having a distinct personality and a soul. Most would say yes. What of elephants who mourn the loss of loved ones, or other primate species, or dolphins, or other highly intelligent animal species?

To look at that further, look at some human beings? I'd say there are more than a few who are anything but spiritual in their natures, let alone having a soul. Take pathological liars and pure narcissists and sociopaths like Tucker Carlson or Donald Trump for two quick examples. Where does human empathy or the soul exist in them? In fact, I'd say some animal species are more evolved spiritually than those two, and even some non-animal species, such as the lilies of the field.

Regarding the spiritual nature, I more than believe that all living things have an innate spiritual nature. But how well-attuned they are to it and how it shapes and directs them is really what makes them "spiritual," in the way we might understand that, or not. Everything is created in the image of God, but not everything reflects that, taking the two human case above as a prime examples.

Just to clarify my original point here. I'm perfectly fine with Bahaullah or Abdullah being human and making understandable technical errors about science. Same thing for Jesus as well. That doesn't make everything that they have to say suspect - unless you choose to see them as infallible sources of authority on everything, that they as humans were incapable of error, that their interpretations are infallible, that their pronouncements and very words are forever without error. Then, if you do that, you are in trouble. It is a house of cards set to collapse upon finding one bit wrong anywhere.

And the result of that is straining to try to make errors "right" by reinterpreting them endlessly into things that cannot be supported in the original statements, as demonstrated above. That in my view, is harmful to faith and spirituality. Take it from someone who used to do that as part of a fundamentalist church trying to defend their "infallible" ideas about things. That is a sure recipe for atheism, IMHO.

 

[Colt]

Now it is time, time ask the question about Baha'u'llah.

Please choose one of the options.

Truth is always a revelation. Baha'u'llah was a great spiritual teacher. It's difficult for the person of a spiritual genius not to take themselves too seriously. He produced a LOT of fruit as a fellow son of God.

 

[Colt]

I was with a group of Urantia Book readers who visited the Baha'u'llah shrine. It's a beautiful place!

 

[Trailblazer]

In Bahai view Human Spirit is different from animals souls. Human spirit continues to live on after death, but animal souls end after death of their body.

“The animal spirit is the power of all the senses, which is realized from the composition and mingling of elements; when this composition decomposes, the power also perishes and becomes annihilated. It may be likened to this lamp: when the oil, wick and fire are combined, it is lighted; and when this combination is dissolved—that is to say, when the combined parts are separated from one another—the lamp also is extinguished.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 208

I am sorry, but I believe that Abdu'l-Baha was way out of his league. Abdu'l-Baha should not speak on scientific matters he knows nothing about. Abdu'l-Baha was not infallible in his own right, only as interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings, but this was not an interpretation of Baha'u'llah's writings, it was his own add-on.

I do not believe that animals have souls but I believe animals have a spirit and there is no reason to think ther spirit does not continue to exist after they die in another form.

First off, to say that “The animal spirit is the power of all the senses, which is realized from the composition and mingling of elements” as if that is all an animal is is not a scientific fact, it is a religious belief.

Second off, it is a scientific fact that animals are a composition of elements (matter) and matter can never be destroyed, it only changes form. So there is no reason to thank that animals are extinguished just because their bodies decompose. Human bodies also decompose but humans have a soul that leaves the body. So there is no reason to believe that the same thing does not happen to the animal spirit after their body dies.

“The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another). It was after nuclear physics told us that mass and energy are essentially equivalent - this is what Einstein meant when he wrote E= mc^2 - that we realized the 1st law of thermodynamics also applied to mass. Mass became another form of energy that had to be included in a thorough thermodynamic treatment of a system. (For a very important note on the difference between matter and mass, see here: The Equivalence of Mass and Energy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)).”

PhysicsCentral

 

[Trailblazer]

I was with a group of Urantia Book readers who visited the Baha'u'llah shrine. It's a beautiful place!

View attachment 75815

Lucky you! I have never been on Baha'i Pilgrimage so I have never seen the shrine.

 

[Truthseeker]

I knew you'd have the answer since you actually study the Writings, unlike me.

I needed a quote like the above when I saw things Baha'u'llah, or Abdu'l-Baha too said things that caused me doubt, because they didn't seem to accord with reality.

 

[Truthseeker]

I am sorry, but I believe that Abdu'l-Baha was way out of his league. Abdu'l-Baha should not speak on scientific matters he knows nothing about. Abdu'l-Baha was not infallible in his own right, only as interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings, but this was not an interpretation of Baha'u'llah's writings, it was his own add-on.

We don't know if this is an interpretation of what Baha'u'llah said. For instance, could this be an interpretation of man being unique, reflecting all the attributes of God? I don't know myself, just suggesting the possibility.

 

[Truthseeker]

“The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another). It was after nuclear physics told us that mass and energy are essentially equivalent - this is what Einstein meant when he wrote E= mc^2 - that we realized the 1st law of thermodynamics also applied to mass. Mass became another form of energy that had to be included in a thorough thermodynamic treatment of a system. (For a very important note on the difference between matter and mass, see here: The Equivalence of Mass and Energy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)).”

The animal spirit is not composed of energy, I don't think, any more than the soul is composed of energy. These both are unconnected to energy and matter, in my opinion.