Why Baha’i? It Comes Down to Five Questions

[tayla]

How do you know every spiritual teacher has claims that are false?

There may be a guy somewhere in a cave who doesn't talk much. Every one I have encountered has this problem. Certainly the major world religions and spiritual paths have this problem.

 

[tayla]

Who determines what is false?

Reality determines it. In the case of science, drop an apple. If you claimed it would float, reality proves you wrong. In the case of the realm of ideas, logic reveals bad ideas. Other bad ideas can be seen by their fruits. Also, ideas contradicting provable scientific truths are false.

 

[tayla]

Why is philosophy superior to religion?

Religions claim to teach truths revealed by God, and they have institutions supporting these ideas. They contain teachings which are provably false.

Philosophy is merely a tool.

 

[tayla]

If there is a God, clearly messages from God are superior to any philosophy of man because God is All-Knowing and no man is All-Knowing.

Yes, of course. But this assumes God sends messages to humanity via specially appointed messengers. But he/she obviously does not do this. We know this because all his so-called messengers teach things untrue, and because the teachings of all these so-called messengers contradict one another. There is no way to discover which messenger is the true one. Certainly if there were a one true messenger of God, than God would have made it clear which one?

 

[tayla]

The same exact thing could be said for philosophers. They should have the same set of criteria to meet as spiritual teachers who claim to be from God.

Agreed. I do not claim that any particular philosopher teaches truth, nor that any philosopher can be trusted to do so. I merely claim that the tool of philosophy is the only possible way to discern truth from error.

 

[tayla]

You have investigated all of them who claimed to be Messengers of God?

Not all, but a good sampling of various tradition, east and west.

 

[tayla]

Have you investigated Baha'u'llah?

You sent me several quotes, and I've encountered others. What I've seen confirms my opinion.

I agree that world peace and harmony is a good goal. But uniting into a global religion is not possible. And world governance must consider the many valuable lessons from political philosophy and moral philosophy. There is no perfect government; hard choices must be made. The people of each generation have to grapple with these topics.

Should a religion be the government? Didn't many world religions already try this experiment, all with disastrous results? Yet Baha'u'llah seems to propose a world religious government.

 

[tayla]

Even if there is one True Messenger, not everyone is going to know who He is.
That is virtually impossible given the differences in humans and how they think.
But that does not mean that there isn't one True Messenger.

There isn't a one true messenger teaching God's revelation. There are many humans, each having teachings and insights from various sources and from various perspectives.

Just as there is not one true symphony. Rather, there are many composers composing many symphonies. But behind it all is the human mind capable of hearing and enjoying music.

 

[tayla]

It is 2 am here

Alaska? Hawaii?

Thanks for spending the time. I will read some Baha'i stuff.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What are the wrong premises? Why are they wrong?
What are the wrong conclusions? Why are they wrong?

1. God is human imagination. And the creation of universe did not require one God or many.
2. Existence of life forms is by progressive evolution (since you are a Bahai, you will understand what progressive is), from simple organisms like cyanobacteria to humans.
3. You are limiting the prowess of your Allah that he will need messengers, sons, prophets, manifestations and mahdis to announce his ever-changing instructions to humans. If your Allah can send angels and houris to particular persons, he could even send billions to announce his plans to each and every human. Don't you think that your Allah is all powerful?

And the wrong conclusions are:

4. If Messengers, then Baha’u’llah: An all powerful God will not need Bahaullah.
5. If Baha’u’llah, then the Baha’i Faith: It would be a very unwise Allah to send various prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations and mahdis who end up with different religions, who will then keep fighting among themselves as to who is right.

These prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations and mahdis have divided humans into Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Bahais, Ahmadiyyas, etc.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you think that revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge, what would you consider trustworthy sources of truth and knowledge? Where else would God's truth and knowledge come from?

Yourself. Surely this deity is capable of communicating with humans one on one. Even the polytheistic gods can manage that. To me, if a deity doesn't want count me worthy enough to communicate with me, then they aren't worthy enough for my worship.

 

[Left Coast]

From the essay:

God is both unprovable and nonfalsifiable, so if you’re looking for proof you can skip the rest of the essay.

Well thank goodness he made it easy. If God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, then there is no way to ever rationally conclude it's true.

Now he tries to recover by saying:

Of course, this is far from saying there is no evidence of God. Indeed, He has left His fingerprints on everything.

But this doesn't avoid the original issue. If God is unfalsifiable, then by definition any evidence one presents can be retrofitted to conform to the God hypothesis. Which means that none of it can get us any closer to rationally concluding that God is actually real.

 

[shmogie]

I will address a few points.

﴾وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ نَحْنُ أَبْنَاءُ اللَّهِ وَأَحِبَّاؤُهُ قُلْ فَلِمَ يُعَذِّبُكُم بِذُنُوبِكُم بَلْ أَنتُم بَشَرٌ مِّمَّنْ خَلَقَ﴿ "And the Jews and the Christians say, 'We are the children of God, and His beloved ones.' Say, 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?' Nay, but you are mortals of His creating" (Qur'an 5:18).

Nor could He contain positive traits, since these make Him similar to His creatures and constitute a subtle form of anthropomorphism (tashbih). He is rather above both positive and negative attributes, above both the good and the not-good, which are both His creations: ﴾وَإِن تُصِبْهُمْ حَسَنَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَٰذِهِ مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ وَإِن تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَٰذِهِ مِنْ عِندِكَ قُلْ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ﴿ "And if good befalls them, they say, 'This is from God,' but if evil befalls them, they say, 'This is from thee.' Say, “All is from God" (Qur'an 4:78).

1. They're nothing compared to the Qur'an.
2. The real story of Baha'u'llah's life is a lot less saintly than the hagiographical narrative parroted by Shoghi Effendi and later Baha'i authors. That's how it works. You remove all the negative aspects of their life, embellish some things here and here, stretch the truth whenever it's convenient. You can make anyone's life seem like the life of a prophet. For example, look at the official Scientology "biographies of L. Ron Hubbard.
3. All the cult leaders you named had a profound effect on the people they met. How do you think they gained followers?
4. Hardly.
5. He did not. Islam teaches the idea of progressive revelation, and so many movements in Islam such as the Isma'ilis recognized this and articulated it similarly to the Bab, the one from whom Baha'u'llah copied this idea.​

Rashid Rida refuted this tired old argument way back in 1900 when Gulpaygani was first popularizing it. A religion doesn't need to be true to spread; it just needs good propaganda. And the Qur'an explicitly tells us not to follow the crowd: ﴾وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ﴿ "Wert thou to obey most of those on earth, they would lead thee astray from the way of God" (6:116).

No such unequivocal claim exists in the Iqan.

Interesting, an apparent adherent of one religion that is a confused load of plaigiarism from older, true Judeo/Christianity, that has itś very own killer prophet, criticizing another plaigiarised newer religion with itś very own prophet.

Oh, the irony.

 

[Left Coast]

Interesting, an apparent adherent of one religion that is a confused load of plaigiarism from older, true Judeo/Christianity, that has itś very own killer prophet, criticizing another plaigiarised newer religion with itś very own prophet.

Oh, the irony.

LOLOL a Christian criticizing the adherents of other religions for appropriating the mythology and ideas of prior religions into their own. Oh the irony.

 

[paarsurrey]

LOLOL a Christian criticizing the adherents of other religions for appropriating the mythology and ideas of prior religions into their own. Oh the irony.

One means import of Pagan-Christianity into anonymous Gospels in the NT Bible in the name of Jesus by Saul of Tarsus , an enemy of Jesus, aka Paul faking a vision when Jesus had gone out of Judea ? Right, please?

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

3. You are limiting the prowess of your Allah that he will need messengers, sons, prophets, manifestations and mahdis to announce his ever-changing instructions to humans. If your Allah can send angels and houris to particular persons, he could even send billions to announce his plans to each and every human. Don't you think that your Allah is all powerful?

God could do that if He wanted to, but obviously He does not want to, and God ONLY does what God wants to do... That is one thing it means to be God.

And the wrong conclusions are:
4. If Messengers, then Baha’u’llah: An all powerful God will not need Bahaullah.

It is not God who needs Baha'u'llah, it is humans who need Him, because humans cannot understand God without an Intermediary. It has always been that way, since the dawn of human history. Humans also need scriptures, because that is how everyone can know the Will of God in every age.

5. If Baha’u’llah, then the Baha’i Faith: It would be a very unwise Allah to send various prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations and mahdis who end up with different religions, who will then keep fighting among themselves as to who is right.

It was God's intention that there be many religions throughout history, but it is not God's fault that humans fought over who was right. Humans have free will so they are responsible for the fighting over who is right.

These prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations and mahdis have divided humans into Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Bahais, Ahmadiyyas, etc.

No, the Messengers have not divided anyone into different religions, humans have divided themselves.
It was the Will of God to have many religions, but it is no longer the Will of God for humans to remain divided into many religions. In the future, there will be only One Religion because that is what God has ordained..

“That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician. This, verily, is the truth, and all else naught but error. Each time that Most Mighty Instrument hath come, and that Light shone forth from the Ancient Dayspring, He was withheld by ignorant physicians who, even as clouds, interposed themselves between Him and the world. It failed, therefore, to recover, and its sickness hath persisted until this day. They indeed were powerless to protect it, or to effect a cure, whilst He Who hath been the Manifestation of Power amongst men was withheld from achieving His purpose, by reason of what the hands of the ignorant physicians have wrought.” The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, pp. 91-92

 

[Trailblazer]

Yourself. Surely this deity is capable of communicating with humans one on one.

God is capable of communicating with humans one on one, but humans could never comprehend God, and that is one reason God does not communicate directly to humans. Messengers of God are not ordinary humans, they have a divine mind, so they can understand God and communicate to humans. Since they have both a human nature and a divine nature they can bridge the gap between God and humans.

Even the polytheistic gods can manage that. To me, if a deity doesn't want count me worthy enough to communicate with me, then they aren't worthy enough for my worship.

To each his or her own. I do not consider myself so important such that the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe has any responsibility to communicate to me directly.

Moreover, God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, so logically speaking, God knows that the best way to communicate to humans is via Messengers and He has employed this Method of communication throughout the ages.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

God is capable of communicating with humans one on one, but humans could never comprehend God, and that is one reason God does not communicate directly to humans. Messengers of God are not ordinary humans, they have a divine mind, so they can understand God and communicate to humans. Since they have both a human nature and a divine nature they can bridge the gap between God and humans.

To each his or her own. I do not consider myself so important such that the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe has any responsibility to communicate to me directly.

Moreover, God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, so logically speaking, God knows that the best way to communicate to humans is via Messengers and He has employed this Method of communication throughout the ages.

Yeah, I know that Baha'is believe that their "messangers" are demi-gods of a sort with a direct hotline to the Supreme Being that is denied to all the rest of us. To me, this just means that your concept of the Supreme Being likes to play games and stir up strife when it could just settle the debate in less than a blink of an eye. If puny humans can come up with a more efficient system than your idea of the Supreme Being, than that shows how worthless your religion's vision of it is. So I will continue to ignore your illogical religion. My gods speak to me and none of them are even the Supreme Being (if such a thing can be said to exist) so how insignificant that must make your god.

I've posted before on how the omni-max Abrahamic deity is just a rhetorical tool that can't be said to truly exist so this isn't anything new to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

"I do not know if it is in the Kitab-i-Iqan but it is in Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh."

Kitab-i-Iqan is a core book of Bahaullah, I don't understand as to why one doesn't know it, please?

I do know it, but I was not sure if Baha'u'llah made the claim you were asking about in the Iqan, because I do not know the book by heart.

Gleaning is a book, as one knows,is said to have been compiled from Bahaullah's writings as told by Shoghi Effendi and he did not remember sometimes or most of the time from which original writing of Bahaullah he did choose it from. It is called cherry picking, hiding something and publicizing what suits one. Right, please?

Gleanings is just as much the Original Writings of Baha'u'llah as is the Iqan. Both were translated into English by Shoghi Effendi.

Does on mean, therefore, that Bahaullah never claimed in Kitab-i-Iqan that he received any word of revelation from G-d, please?

Regards

I am not sure, as I have not had the time to look yet, since I have too many posts to answer.
I will check it later if I have the time.

But for now, the purpose of the Kitab-i-Iqan was NOT for Baha'u'llah to proclaim His Station or His Message, it was this...

The Kitáb-i-Íqán (Persian: كتاب ايقان‎, Arabic: كتاب الإيقان‎ "The Book of Certitude") is one of many books held sacred by followers of the Bahá'í Faith; it is their primary theological work. One Bahá'í scholar states that it can be regarded as the "most influential Quran commentary in Persian outside the Muslim world," because of its international audience.[1] It is sometimes referred to as the Book of Iqan or simply The Iqan.

The book is in two parts: the first part deals with the foundational discourse that divine revelation is progressive and religions are related to one another, with each major monotheistic religion accepting the previous ones and, often in veiled terms, prophesying the advent of the next one. Since the questioner is a Muslim, Bahá'u'lláh uses verses from the Bible to show how a Christian could interpret his own sacred texts in allegorical terms to come to believe in the next dispensation. By extension the same method of interpretation can be used for a Muslim to see the validity of the claims of the Báb. The second and larger part of the book is the substantive discourse and deals with specific proofs, both theological and logical, of the mission of the Báb. One of the best-known and best-loved passages of this part is known as the "Tablet of the True Seeker."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitáb-i-Íqán

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, I know that Baha'is believe that their "messangers" are demi-gods of a sort with a direct hotline to the Supreme Being that is denied to all the rest of us. To me, this just means that your concept of the Supreme Being likes to play games and stir up strife when it could just settle the debate in less than a blink of an eye.

God has a perfectly good reason for not proving He exists to everyone, and He explained it to Baha’u’llah...

Baha’u’llah wrote that God could have made all men one people. In the context of the passage, it means that God could have made all people believers. I assume that means God could prove that He exists in some fashion, be it direct communication or in some other way... The passage goes on to say why God didn’t do that... Well, rather than try to paraphrase....

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71​

The empirical evidence indicates that God chose not to prove He exists. The reason, according to this passage, is that God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own free will (by virtue of their own innate powers). God only wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort (wayward and perverse). God also wants us to have faith, and that is why God does not offer unequivocal proof of His existence. Those who have faith will be rewarded.

If puny humans can come up with a more efficient system than your idea of the Supreme Being, than that shows how worthless your religion's vision of it is. So I will continue to ignore your illogical religion. My gods speak to me and none of them are even the Supreme Being (if such a thing can be said to exist) so how insignificant that must make your god.

There is no indication that humans have come up with any kind of system that is superior to God's System.
You can choose to believe and do whatever you want to do, that is why you have free will.

I've posted before on how the omni-max Abrahamic deity is just a rhetorical tool that can't be said to truly exist so this isn't anything new to me.

The God represented by the Abrahamic religions either exists or not....
Not believing in that God will not make that God cease to exist, because our belief is not what brought God into existence.