Muslim Baha'i Dialogue (Jesus, ritual, Moses, Torah, Tanakh)

[kai]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

The last TWO quotes were from B aha`u'llah the first FOUR were from Islamic authorities, including the Imam Ali.

Regards,
Scott

indeed

[Booko]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

This is part of the reason they are doubtful of any future claims of alleged "Prophets" since the time of Muhammed. God has already given a perfect religion, and it has remained unsullied therefore there is no need of a new revelation or a new religion. The basic idea is that Islam is so perfect that it CANNOT be perverted by mortals as it is protected by Allah.

Yes, have you noticed pretty much every religion manages to find a way to rationalize why the next Prophet couldn't possibly be a Prophet? Oh, it's not that they quibble about whether some particular claimant's claims are bollocks -- they simply shut the door on the entire idea. (In the West it's the Jews that are most moderate about this...they simply claim that prophets like Jesus and Muhammad may be prophets...just not for Jews.)

So, good friend, the fact that some adherents of Islam have also slammed the door shut on God and invented a reason to believe that God could not have anything additional to teach us for the rest of humanity's existence is hardly surprising.

Heck, in a bit over 8 centuries perhaps we too will have managed to rationalize a way to reject the next Prophet. At the moment that looks like a very daunting task, but 8 or 9 centuries is a very long time to put minds to work on the problem.

If I understand you right, we both believe that connection with the Divine is available to everyone as an individual. Where we seem to differ is in that phenomenon where some selected individuals across time get singled out for a more full and more direct sort of revelation. At least there's some internal consistency with either your view or mine.

I find it a completely unsatisfying argument that God would send us a Prophet with a message so complete that it would stand the test of time 100,000, much less a million years later. To make that argument at all sensible, it would have to be assumed that humanity would cease to exist in the not too distant future, because we can see in history how even after a few millennia things change enough that some parts of a religion appear quite "outdated". How much would be outdated 100,000 years from now? 100,000 years ago we hadn't even invented agriculture.

Well, as this is not really a comparison of Islam and the Baha'i Faith I'll ring off on that topic unless you want to start a new thread with it.

The rise of a new Prophet and religion flies in the face of this unalterable perception and directly puts into doubt the perceived perfection of what God has already done. Theoretically, any founder and any followers of a new religion would be indictable for offending Islam simply for claiming otherwise.

Naturally. It's why Baha'is are branded heretics and abused and killed in some countries. It's why I would be a fool to even travel to some Muslim-majority countries. But they'll get over it eventually. Religious history shows that it always happens that way. It just takes a few centuries is all.

But just like the Muslims are not concerned about the historical claims of Christians that Christ is the only way so Muhammad(pbuh) must be a liar, neither am I concerned about the claims of some Muslims that Muhammad(pbuh) is the only possible last prophet.

Plus ca change, le meme chose.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by kai

it seems to me that the idealism of the Baha'i Faith is commendable on the one hand saying they encompass all religions as continuous revelation, which indeed caught my interest, then on the other cut themselves off from Christianity ,Judaism and Islam by saying they are all mistaken and we are the correct religion our revelation is right and yours is wrong . disappointing!

Actually, we don't say that the other religions are mistaken. Merely that humans make some interpretive mistakes. Why should that not happen with a religious text? It happens with poetry, prose and computer manuals. And I'm sure we'll get around to making our own mistakes as well in time.

Honestly, there are clear differences in common teachings between those religions that render them totally incompatible, in which case you have the following alternatives:

• The basis of all religions is true, but some humans have misunderstood some things over time.
• Only one message can possibly be true.
• It's all bollocks

Which do you prefer? I leaned towards "bollocks" for many years, until I discovered the first possibility was actually possible.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by kai

defining evidence by quoting Baha'i scripture to a Muslim is like quoting the new testament to a Jew. utterly pointless they don't believe you

It can be offered as a "proof" in which case your point holds, or it can be offered as an "explanation of our views" in which case belief is not relevant.

I may not believe in Scientology either, but if I wanted to understand it I would fully expect a Scientologist to quote me from Hubbard's work to explain their views, eh?

[kai]

Originally Posted by Booko

Actually, we don't say that the other religions are mistaken. Merely that humans make some interpretive mistakes. Why should that not happen with a religious text? It happens with poetry, prose and computer manuals. And I'm sure we'll get around to making our own mistakes as well in time.

Honestly, there are clear differences in common teachings between those religions that render them totally incompatible, in which case you have the following alternatives:

• The basis of all religions is true, but some humans have misunderstood some things over time.
• Only one message can possibly be true.
• It's all bollocks

Which do you prefer? I leaned towards "bollocks" for many years, until I discovered the first possibility was actually possible.

i love this post for your honesty Booko i frubal you , and i am still thinking bollocks for now

[kai]

Originally Posted by Booko

It can be offered as a "proof" in which case your point holds, or it can be offered as an "explanation of our views" in which case belief is not relevant.

I may not believe in Scientology either, but if I wanted to understand it I would fully expect a Scientologist to quote me from Hubbard's work to explain their views, eh?

yes thats true at least then you can say its Bollocks with some integrity

[Booko]

Originally Posted by kai

yes thats true at least then you can say its Bollocks with some integrity

Well, it's good to do some research before making pronouncements, eh?

I got halfway through Battlefield Earth and put it down forever. I can see why Hubbard changed careers (sort of). He wasn't doing as well as the other big Campbell-era SF writers for sure, no doubt because his SF was derivative at best.