How are these Great Beings explained?

[siti]

You are taking a Christian fundamentalist approach of taking sacred scripture out of context.

I was taking it in the context in which it had just been quoted by another Baha'i, to wit...

...if indeed there is a God, but people are unable to recognize Him, it is due to their own false beliefs and delusions. In the same way that if there is no God, the people who believe in God would be delusional. I quote Baha'ullah:

"For the people are wandering in the paths of delusion, bereft of discernment to see God with their own eyes, or hear His Melody with their own ears. Thus have We found them, as thou also dost witness.

Thus have their superstitions become veils between them and their own hearts and kept them from the path of God, the Exalted, the Great."

Once again I find myself wondering about Baha'i kettles and other pots...

 

[Dawnofhope]

Haha. As long as it's your opinion, I see nothing wrong with it. People fuss over praying to statues all day long and I find that is the most, or one of the most, ridiculous arguments against Catholicism if I ever heard one.

I seems reasonable to pray to the Mother Mary and to revere her. The use of statues has never been my practice but I'm happy its meaningful for others. .

If he is a manifestation of god, wouldn't that be on par to saying bahaullah and so forth come from god too? One of your peers actually quite literally associated Bahaullah as god rather than like or from. I don't see it as convincing, though. If you only see your adopted father and everything you know about your biological father is what your adopted father told you, more than likely you'll trust him so much that you can't tell the difference between the two. It's a natural association between father and son. How christian's express it is besides the point of how they believe or interpret it.

There is certainly a Baha'u'llah is God theology wrapped up in the Baha'i faith as there is for Christianity (Christ) and Vaishnavite Hinduism (Krishna). However, rather than being God incarnate, Baha'u'llah manifests God as we believe all the Manifestations do. Sometimes we talk about Baha'u'llah as God the Father who has been present for Eternity, but that can be confusing. Other times we may associate Baha'u'llah with the Baha'i era, thus in association with changes in the world that came about even before He was born, but that too can raise eyebrows.

Haha. Someone stole my laptop so I'm having fun on our "community" computer until it gets so late I have to go home. I can't wait until school starts. I'll be graduating next year; my last semester.

That's great that you will be graduating. What course are you studying if you don't mind me asking?

I'm away from home and stuck in a provincial town for 4 days providing medical cover. RF is good in my free time.

lol Well, normally they engage with JW over the same ol' scriptures. When I put in a new thought they never heard of before, and find I'm not christian, they cut the conversation short. Almost as if they can't learn about christ unless it's from christians-especially not from a Catholic.

I do exactly the same, and when they find out I'm a Baha'i it completely bamboozles them. Its not my intention, but its perplexing for some Christians when they come across different faith adherents that are very familiar with scripture.

Between fourteen and about seventeen. My brother said I wore their ear out. After surgery (18ish), it died out and I left christianity all together. I was Pentecostal.

I thought so. I was Pentecostal for less than six months. Its wasn't a good fit for me. What caused you to leave it? Being told I was demon possessed was a major turn off for me.

I think I can talk Christianity in my sleep. It's real refreshing when I can go to a Mosque, Temple, or just walk in the woods without seeing a church or hearing god bless you.

When we first met I was sure you were Christian.

"Can" be. Does not mean they are. Kinda like telling me I'm mistaken about The Buddha because I say he does not believe in god nor point to him.

I would never say anyone is mistaken about their own faith especially a religion I know nothing about. I mean, Buddhism and Hinduism have a lot of linguistics and culture in common but I would never say we believe the same thing just because of similarities. Especially since I practiced Japanese Buddhism and now in a Vietnamese Buddhist sect that neither speaks not a word of Sanskrit and they, like Vinayaka says too, probably barely know anything about their scriptures but their practice and lifestyle based on them.

I don't mean to be rude to any Faith adherent, and its an inescapable part of my religion to have beliefs about other religions. Then again most religions have something to say about other religions so that's nothing new. I think its good that you are open to the idea that any religious adherent can be mistaken about their core beliefs, just as I could be. I'm not saying that Vaishnavite Hindus don't believe Krishna is a literal incarnation of God. They clearly do. I'm question if there is another way of looking at it, given Krishna was a man amongst men thousands of years ago, just as Christ was.

Is Elijah here now?

I never heard of Elijah being with christians at any communion at any church, hall, and bible study I've been to throughout the holy-spirit years.

No Elijah in the Eucharist.

No Elijah in the Eucharist, but it was one of the reasons that the Jews questioned Jesus's Messianic claims. In Malachi 4:5 it was prophecised that Elijah must come before the Day of the Lord.

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord

The Jewish authorities claimed that Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because Elijah had not come. Jesus however made clear that John the Baptist was Elijah.

And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
Matthew 17:10-13

Then later Jesus appeared at the transfiguration with Moses and Elijah.

Baha'is believe Malachi 4:5 is a prophecy that was fulfilled through the Bab, who like John the Baptist with Jesus, prepared the way for Baha'u'llah.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Once again I find myself wondering about Baha'i kettles and other pots...

Welcome back Siti. We're all hypocrites to some extent. I'm no exception.

So if you want to throw the first stone, be my guest.

 

[siti]

JWs in USA

I have never been in the USA except to transit - I know LAX pretty well but nothing more than that about the US first hand. I point this out because it is not the first time you have made reference to aspects of US life as if they somehow pertain either to the discussion at hand or me personally. Neither is the case in this instance.

On the other hand they seem to have a very good knowledge of the bible, in large part to justify their own unusual theology...

...as opposed to other denominations that have a very poor knowledge of the Bible and are therefore unable to justify any kind of theology? I mean, whatever may or may not be right or wrong with JWs theology, a comment like that without any support is unbecoming of someone who professes religious unity...I know this thread is not about JW doctrine but that side swipe was completely uncalled for and unnecessary especially as you know full well that I no longer subscribe to those beliefs anyway.

...but of course the Baha'is could be accused of that too.

You don't say!

What do you need to do to get disfellowshipped and what's the rational for shunning?

There are a range of things but essentially it boils down to unrepentant wrong-doing such as continuing in an adulterous relationship..."shunning" is intended to achieve two purposes - to protect the purity of the congregation and to move the sinner to repentance - there is always the possibility of a return even for people who have done really bad things and remained "unrepentant" for a long time (there are scriptural precedents for both if you're really interested).

Is it OK to marry someone of a different denomination or different religion for JWs?

Not really - it happens and nobody is disfellowshipped if they are legally married to an unbeliever but it is strongly advised against.

I can see becoming involved with a married woman, albeit long time separated, could be a major moral dilemma for you. Was it?

I wouldn't say it was a major moral dilemma - we loved each other deeply (and still do) and "love covers over a multitude of sins" - 1 Peter 4:8 (NIV). That was the most important thing to us - as soon as my wife's former marriage was legally dissolved we married and we've been together ever since. I think the experience made us stronger to be honest - I certainly don't regret it and I don't hold any ill-feeling towards JWs for applying the rules I knew very well when I became a member.

I think that is a reasonable hypothesis and the most likely explanation

Exactly!

Try to call religious teachers like Jesus and Muhammad delusional, is simply crossing lines of disrespect for others beliefs and rules of common courtesy and decency.

OK - so where do we draw the line? Jesus and Muhammad are off limits...what about L. Ron Hubbard or Charles Taze Russell? How about Joseph Smith, Ellen Gould White or Sun Myung Moon...or ..David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite? Where do the rules of common courtesy and the rules of common sense part company?

If the claims of Jesus and Muhammad were not true, then they were every bit as bizarre as any of the above names I have listed. How on earth can anyone

value reason and independent investigation

in religious matters without asking whether the religious teachers they are investigating might have been deluded? This is not a matter of common decency or courtesy any more than it would be appropriate for you as a GP to fail (on the grounds of 'decency') to examine a female breast if you suspected there might be malignant lump there.

 

[siti]

...if you want to throw the first stone, be my guest.

...I might too if you hadn't beaten me to it!

 

[CG Didymus]

...Revelation 11:3
And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
There will be 1260 years of Islam, or the Influence of Muhammad and Ali from Muhammad's pilgrimage in 622 AD when the Islamic calendar begun, until when prophesising was no longer relevant as it had been superseded by the new Manifestation of God the Bab.



Revelation 11:9
And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

I see the problem you are having. Islam is in the reigns of leadership immediately after the prophets death in 632 through Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and finally Ali (who doesn't have sufficient time to positively change the course of Islam) before the Umayyads. Rather than having a new starting point such as 632 or 661, these verse is saying that the period of prophecy as in 11:3 above is largely a period where the true law of God is subverted...

No, you don't see the problem I'm having. You have to twist things to make them work. Is that okay in interpreting Bible prophecy? It says the beast kills the two witnesses. Muhammad is one of the witnesses and is the first Woe that ended already in 9:12 and dies years before Ali.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The glorious kings of chariots wear out
The Suttas/the teachings decay

The body too undergoes decay
Humans physical bodies as well

The Dhamma of the good does not decay
The message of good; compassion; etc does not decay

The good proclaims with the good
The Dhamma verifies it's own existence

Explanations of The Disappearances of the Dhamma as compared to the suttas.




The second link talks about The Buddha telling followers that there would be someone like himself who teaches the same teachings just as The Buddha who will be exalted like The Buddha. When The Buddha went into paranivanna, he told his disciples to continue with his teachings.

None of the teaches of The Buddha have decayed.

When everyone has gone, kamma will exist.
When everyone is gone, compassion and good will still exist.
When everyone is gone, the noble truths (suffering) will still exist.​

These things are not dependent on Maitreya's return.

After awhile, the physical teachings do decay because nothing lasts forever.

Unlike Christ, Bahaullah, and Muhammad, there is no god involved in this whole process of other Buddhas and Bodhisattvas continuing The Buddha's teachings once they are enlightened.

You have to provide examples of how the Dhamma decays not the people's practice of it. We do the best we can to practice the Dhamma but once we become attached to its physical teachings, we are no longer practicing the Dhamma. Bahai are attached to the physical teachings. That's contrary to what The Dhamma teaches.

Bahaullah cannot remedy that unless he changes The Dhamma to reflect god.



One side note. Krishna can't return. He is already here. He's god.

I think that we need Dhamma for this age we live in which has its own unique problems wherefore Buddha’s reference to Maitreya Who would teach His own religion adapting the Dhamma for our age and it’s needs.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Im listening now. It sounds like People will stop believing in the Dhamma. "People who dont certify in nibanna anymore".

The "dhamma of the good" is independent of people. Thats attachment. "Teachers have not taught to practice to meet nivanna" (from the video)

Thats like saying god disappears because one day no know will believe in god. Nibanna isnt declining. He says people belief in it is declining. Maitreya like all buddhas will teach the same dhamma.

What is different about maitreya teachings that The Buddha never taught and that people will believe in The Buddha again?

Can you find the points in the suttas that says nibanna and kamma will die out? Its long so i read it after work only if you want to discuss it.

Here is another that talks about the people not the dhamma itself

Excellent!

 

[loverofhumanity]

Im listening now. It sounds like People will stop believing in the Dhamma. "People who dont certify in nibanna anymore".

The "dhamma of the good" is independent of people. Thats attachment. "Teachers have not taught to practice to meet nivanna" (from the video)

Thats like saying god disappears because one day no know will believe in god. Nibanna isnt declining. He says people belief in it is declining. Maitreya like all buddhas will teach the same dhamma.

What is different about maitreya teachings that The Buddha never taught and that people will believe in The Buddha again?

Can you find the points in the suttas that says nibanna and kamma will die out? Its long so i read it after work only if you want to discuss it.

Here is another that talks about the people not the dhamma itself

My own personal understanding is that Maitreya will teach His own religion which will be Buddha’s Dhamma adapted for this age. So we’re talking similar not identical. For instance Maitreya will set up a samgha but will it be based on individuals or groups?

I can’t find a quote but we are told that Maitreya will be the Buddha of universal fellowship so meaning world unity.

So the basic difference will be that Maitreya will gradually unite all humankind to believe in Buddha again and follow His Teachings for this age which many will be identical but some new teachings.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think that we need Dhamma for this age we live in which has its own unique problems wherefore Buddha’s reference to Maitreya Who would teach His own religion adapting the Dhamma for our age and it’s needs.

The Dhamma talks about suffering, compassion, equanimity, getting rid of ignorance, and attachments. What is outdated to where maitrya would go against his own lord to change the teachings to his own?

How is one buddhas teachings separate from another?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My own personal understanding is that Maitreya will teach His own religion which will be Buddha’s Dhamma adapted for this age. So we’re talking similar not identical. For instance Maitreya will set up a samgha but will it be based on individuals or groups?

I can’t find a quote but we are told that Maitreya will be the Buddha of universal fellowship so meaning world unity.

So the basic difference will be that Maitreya will gradually unite all humankind to believe in Buddha again and follow His Teachings for this age which many will be identical but some new teachings.

I dont see what needs to be changed.

 

[arthra]

There's a book that still may be available entitled
"Buddha Maitrya-Amitabha Has Appeared"
Buddha Maitrya: Amitabha Has Appeared

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have never been in the USA except to transit - I know LAX pretty well but nothing more than that about the US first hand. I point this out because it is not the first time you have made reference to aspects of US life as if they somehow pertain either to the discussion at hand or me personally. Neither is the case in this instance.

My mistake then. It is useful to know where people are from. I'm from New Zealand. If you want to share with me where you are from (or not) that is fine.

...as opposed to other denominations that have a very poor knowledge of the Bible and are therefore unable to justify any kind of theology? I mean, whatever may or may not be right or wrong with JWs theology, a comment like that without any support is unbecoming of someone who professes religious unity...I know this thread is not about JW doctrine but that side swipe was completely uncalled for and unnecessary especially as you know full well that I no longer subscribe to those beliefs anyway.

No offense intended. I am interested to learn more about the JWs and talked to @Deeje earlier in the year. I found her very knowledgeable about the bible and generally respectful and courteous.

You don't say!

My comment was really about how JWs and Baha'is would see each other as they have so many differences. The theology of one viewed by the other would seem unusual. That was the experience Deeje and I had when we spoke earlier this year.

There are a range of things but essentially it boils down to unrepentant wrong-doing such as continuing in an adulterous relationship..."shunning" is intended to achieve two purposes - to protect the purity of the congregation and to move the sinner to repentance - there is always the possibility of a return even for people who have done really bad things and remained "unrepentant" for a long time (there are scriptural precedents for both if you're really interested).

That makes sense. I am interested in the scriptural bases for this. Baha'is have a somewhat different approach to such problems.

Not really - it happens and nobody is disfellowshipped if they are legally married to an unbeliever but it is strongly advised against.

I'm married to someone who isn't a Baha'i. No problem there.

Was your wife a JW?

I wouldn't say it was a major moral dilemma - we loved each other deeply (and still do) and "love covers over a multitude of sins" - 1 Peter 4:8 (NIV). That was the most important thing to us - as soon as my wife's former marriage was legally dissolved we married and we've been together ever since. I think the experience made us stronger to be honest - I certainly don't regret it and I don't hold any ill-feeling towards JWs for applying the rules I knew very well when I became a member.

It sounds like you were disfellowshipped. Is there any possibility of going back to the JWs now you are married? Don't answer if you are not comfortable. They are personal questions but we are talking about religion and that involves considering our experiences. I'm open about my experiences (within limits of course).

OK - so where do we draw the line? Jesus and Muhammad are off limits...what about L. Ron Hubbard or Charles Taze Russell? How about Joseph Smith, Ellen Gould White or Sun Myung Moon...or ..David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite? Where do the rules of common courtesy and the rules of common sense part company?

The limits in medicine are do no harm. So while David Koresh clearly crossed that line, I'm far more concerned about religious groups that are exclusive as opposed to inclusive. Religions that teach their followers that their friends and family members should be shunned or you should be wary of them because they hold different beliefs. That causes far more damage overall, than the occasional outrageously extreme groups (I don't call them religions) like the Branch Davidians.

If the claims of Jesus and Muhammad were not true, then they were every bit as bizarre as any of the above names I have listed. How on earth can anyone

How can anyone what? But bizarre and unfamiliar is simply what we are not familiar with. So the Baha'i faith might appear as bizarre to a JW as a Baha'i might seems to a JW. How do we bridge the gap? I think its about being comfortable in each others company. If one party calls the other deluded, then that's a real set back for progress.

in religious matters without asking whether the religious teachers they are investigating might have been deluded? This is not a matter of common decency or courtesy any more than it would be appropriate for you as a GP to fail (on the grounds of 'decency') to examine a female breast if you suspected there might be malignant lump there.

Not the best analogy. If I thought she had breast cancer then thinking about schizophrenia would be far from my mind.

I think you have dug yourself into a hole by suggesting many of the world religious leaders might have been deluded (and it suggests we may be to by association) but go ahead.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I dont see what needs to be changed.

I think maybe things like world peace, world disarmament? World citizenship, a world language maybe, peace between the Faiths and a new attitude towards people to accept all humanity as equals are some global problems perhaps not faced in Gautama’s time or not on a global scale?

As far as change? I think there is a great need for prejudice and bigotry to be eliminated or educated out of our minds. What do you think about prejudice. I see the racial stuff and it’s very sad. We are all people so the colour of our skin should not matter.

So if we read the wise Words of Buddha or Hindu literature we will see that there is much truth in them and not only the Bible or the Baha’i Books. Truth is in all Faiths and sects we believe. So Vinayaka and you possess much truth that I don’t. That’s the way it is and if we are humble we can share and learn from each other.

Truth is found everywhere. It would be indeed difficult to find a creed or a doctrine of any sort in this world that did not possess some facet of truth; this is what Bahá'u'lláh believed and taught.
(Shoghi Effendi)

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Dhamma talks about suffering, compassion, equanimity, getting rid of ignorance, and attachments. What is outdated to where maitrya would go against his own lord to change the teachings to his own?

How is one buddhas teachings separate from another?

Yes these things are always in need of the Buddha’s wisdom and nothing is outdated.

But we do have global problems that need solutions such as I mentioned in my previous post. World governance? World or international laws? World language? World peace? An end to wars? Friendship between the religions? Global warming? World disarmament?

There are many problems we have as a world that require global solutions I think so it’s not that Buddha’s Dhamma was ever out of date but more that our times have changed so we need instructions and wisdom on how best to deal with our new interconnected and multi cultural multi religious world and society.

 

[siti]

Dear @adrian009

I am a pom, Manchester born and bred with ancestry from Yorkshire, Lancashire, Wales and Devon. I have lived and worked in Fiji for the last 18+ years. I was indeed disfellowshipped (not because of marrying outside the faith but because of being in an 'adulterous' relationship) and as I mentioned in my earlier post we did make our way back to the congregation which was tough because as a disfellowshipped brother I was allowed to attend meetings but not associate with the brothers before and after the meetings until my reinstatement. That meant that I had to scuttle off quietly immediately after the meeting ended whilst my wife remained to socialize with the members of the congregation. I know it seems weird but it is considered part of the 'discipline' that 'produces a harvest of righteousness and peace' (Hebrews 12:11). But in any case, we both entertained quite different doubts by then and our meeting attendance waned until we stopped associating altogether. I have not been an active JW since 1999 and last attended a meeting about ten years or so ago if I recall correctly - bear that in mind because my knowledge of JW teachings is out of date.

I think you have dug yourself into a hole by suggesting many of the world religious leaders might have been deluded (and it suggests we may be to by association) but go ahead.

OK I will go ahead - I asked where you would draw the line about suggesting that religious teachers might be 'deluded' - you have put David Koresh definitely on one side (I'm OK with that) and Jesus and Muhammad definitely on the other...but what about the others I mentioned? Do you think Joseph Smith might have been deluded or did he really receive angelic visitations? What about Sun Myung Moon? Was he really anointed by Jesus to complete Christ's Messianic mission of uniting the Christian family? Or were these otherwise high-functioning individuals suffering religious delusions? You have to have an opinion here and it has to be either one or the other - surely you can't imagine yourself to be the "True Parent" and the second coming of Christ and be simply "mistaken" can you? A person who genuinely thought himself to be the returned Christ has to be either right or deluded hasn't he? The only other option is that they were liars isn't it? Which is more disrespectful - to call them deluded or to call them dishonest?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Dear @adrian009

I am a pom, Manchester born and bred with ancestry from Yorkshire, Lancashire, Wales and Devon. I have lived and worked in Fiji for the last 18+ years. I was indeed disfellowshipped (not because of marrying outside the faith but because of being in an 'adulterous' relationship) and as I mentioned in my earlier post we did make our way back to the congregation which was tough because as a disfellowshipped brother I was allowed to attend meetings but not associate with the brothers before and after the meetings until my reinstatement. That meant that I had to scuttle off quietly immediately after the meeting ended whilst my wife remained to socialize with the members of the congregation. I know it seems weird but it is considered part of the 'discipline' that 'produces a harvest of righteousness and peace' (Hebrews 12:11). But in any case, we both entertained quite different doubts by then and our meeting attendance waned until we stopped associating altogether. I have not been an active JW since 1999 and last attended a meeting about ten years or so ago if I recall correctly - bear that in mind because my knowledge of JW teachings is out of date.

Thanks for that. That's helpful for me to have a sense of who you are and where you have come from.

My father was from Hertfordshire, England and I spent a few months in Fiji during my trainee intern year, mostly in Labasa and Taveuni. I grew up in the Presbyterian church but like a lot of teenagers religion didn't hold much appeal. In my early 20s I went through a difficult time and that led me to a search for meaning and back to my Christian roots, through a Pentecostal, Charismatic Anglican, and finally a Baptist Church. I left the Baptists to become a Baha'i in my mid 20s. I'm in my early 50s now.

OK I will go ahead - I asked where you would draw the line about suggesting that religious teachers might be 'deluded' - you have put David Koresh definitely on one side (I'm OK with that) and Jesus and Muhammad definitely on the other...but what about the others I mentioned?

Although I would never use the word deluded, I don't care what you call David Koresh, because by any reasonable persons standards he had clearly crossed the line.

IMHO, Jesus and Muhammad are both the real deal so definitely on the other side of the line.

Do you think Joseph Smith might have been deluded or did he really receive angelic visitations?

I don't believe his story, and an analysis of the book of Mormon suggests a much more likely source of his inspiration being the KJV bible along with some other works. Mormons seem like nice people though. They are well organised with their door to door presentations, they are pleasant, courteous, and abstain from intoxicating substances such as alcohol. I attribute their good character to inspiration from the KJV bible in their literature. I could dig a little deeper and make some criticisms of their teachings and their organisation but am happy to leave it at that.

What about Sun Myung Moon? Was he really anointed by Jesus to complete Christ's Messianic mission of uniting the Christian family?

I've never had an interest or attraction to this group. If I had a significant association with an adherent of this faith in my personal life or online, then I would look at it more closely.

Or were these otherwise high-functioning individuals suffering religious delusions? You have to have an opinion here and it has to be either one or the other - surely you can't imagine yourself to be the "True Parent" and the second coming of Christ and be simply "mistaken" can you?

I'm just an ordinary guy making his way in the world like everyone else. I consider myself largely unworthy to be a Baha'i, a husband, a father, a son, and a doctor. I have never thought of myself as being a 'true parent' of the Returned Christ. That sounds very grandiose to me.

A person who genuinely thought himself to be the returned Christ has to be either right or deluded hasn't he?

He's either right or He's wrong. There's no middle ground.

The only other option is that they were liars isn't it? Which is more disrespectful - to call them deluded or to call them dishonest?

Once you have satisfied the Bab and Baha'u'llah were either delusional or not, and I appreciate that's what you feel to be the best approach, then your next question might be, were they liars?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Let's not say the "Bible", because what is usually meant is the Christian version. So let's just look at the NT. Who wrote it? A prophet/manifestation? Who declared it as the "Word" of God? The very same Christians that Baha'is say have interpreted the NT incorrectly. So how would they know it's the Word of God? How did they know which gospels and epistles to include? God guided them in that but didn't guide them in the interpretation?

You may like to read this essay some day - A Bahá'í View of the Bible - It Discusses the contents of the Bible and many views;

I choose to look at it in this light;

"...We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to..." Baha'u'llah

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

No, you don't see the problem I'm having. You have to twist things to make them work. Is that okay in interpreting Bible prophecy? It says the beast kills the two witnesses. Muhammad is one of the witnesses and is the first Woe that ended already in 9:12 and dies years before Ali.

We are two souls looking at the book of Revelation. I have a Baha'i inspired view of this book that is a work in progress. You are looking at the book too, and assessing the validity of a Baha'i view. I'm just explaining why it makes sense to me. I'm not twisting it to convince you. If the Baha'i view is true and you prayerfully, sincerely and longingly want to see the truth or otherwise of a Baha'i view you will in time.

The Beast killed the 'truth and spirit' of the true Teachings of Islam as exemplified by Shi'a Islam (Muhammad and Ali as the first Imam).

Muhammad is a witness (and messenger) of God's revelation. He witnesses it and proclaims it as does His successor Ali. The proclamation of the Shi'a (True) Revelation begins from 622 AD until 1844. The True Revelation is usurped by Sunni Islam (661 to 1922).

Muhammad continues to witness from 622 to 1844 though His True Teachings were visibly dead for all the world to see from 661 with the advent of the Umayyads. This happened after the first Imam, Ali dies.

 

[Deeje]

Hello again Adrian...

I am interested to learn more about the JWs and talked to @Deeje earlier in the year. I found her very knowledgeable about the bible and generally respectful and courteous.

Thank you. Is there a line of reasoning that you would like to explore?

My comment was really about how JWs and Baha'is would see each other as they have so many differences. The theology of one viewed by the other would seem unusual. That was the experience Deeje and I had when we spoke earlier this year.

Indeed. I had heard of Baha'is but it never dawned on me that they were an offshoot of Islam. For some reason I thought they were more of an Eastern religion, rather than a Middle Eastern one. I have never encountered a Baha'i believer in my local neighborhood where we preach.

That makes sense. I am interested in the scriptural bases for this. Baha'is have a somewhat different approach to such problems.

The Bible is our guide in everything. How did God handle unrepentant wrongdoers in Israel?

"God took expelling, or disfellowshipping, action in numerous instances. He sentenced Adam to death and drove him and his wife Eve out of the garden of Eden. (Gen 3:19, 23, 24) Cain was banished and became a wanderer and a fugitive in the earth. (Gen 4:11, 14, 16) The angels that sinned were thrown into Tartarus, a condition of dense darkness in which they are reserved for judgment. (2Pe 2:4) Twenty-three thousand fornicators were cut off from Israel in one day. (1Cor 10:8) Achan was put to death at Jehovah’s command for stealing that which was devoted to Jehovah. (Joshua 7:15, 20, 21, 25) Korah the Levite along with Dathan and Abiram of the tribe of Reuben were cut off for rebellion, and Miriam was stricken with leprosy and eventually might have died in that condition if Moses had not pleaded for her. As it was, she was expelled from the camp of Israel under quarantine seven days. Num 16:27, 32, 33, 35; 12:10, 13-15.

Under the Law, for the penalty of cutting off to be carried out, evidence had to be established at the mouth of at least two witnesses. (Deut 19:15) These witnesses were required to be the first to stone the guilty one. (Deut 17:7) This would demonstrate their zeal for God’s law and the purity of the congregation of Israel and would also be a deterrent to false, careless, or hasty testimony.

Based on the principles of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Christian Greek Scriptures by command and precedent authorize expulsion, or disfellowshipping, from the Christian congregation. By exercising this God-given authority, the congregation keeps itself clean and in good standing before God. The apostle Paul, with the authority vested in him, ordered the expulsion of an incestuous fornicator who had taken his father’s wife. (1Co 5:5-13) He also exercised disfellowshipping authority against Hymenaeus and Alexander. (1Tim 1:19, 20)"

Excerpt from Expelling — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

I'm married to someone who isn't a Baha'i. No problem there.

I was married to an unbeliever for almost 45 years. He respected my views, I respected his. I became a JW after we were married. It is always easier to be married to a fellow JW, since we would not have conflicting ideas or goals. I believe that serving God together strengthens a marriage.

I'm far more concerned about religious groups that are exclusive as opposed to inclusive. Religions that teach their followers that their friends and family members should be shunned or you should be wary of them because they hold different beliefs. That causes far more damage overall, than the occasional outrageously extreme groups

JW's are good neighbors and work colleagues but reserve most of their social interaction for fellow believers. We have little in common with those who do not share our faith, so we do not naturally gravitate to them. You can't have friendships with people you have difficulty communicating with, or who don't share common interests.

the Baha'i faith might appear as bizarre to a JW as a Baha'i might seems to a JW. How do we bridge the gap? I think its about being comfortable in each others company. If one party calls the other deluded, then that's a real set back for progress.

From our perspective, we cannot "bridge gaps" because the gaps are too wide. What Baha'is believe is not even close to what we accept as truth. You have a wide range of views embracing other religious beliefs and leaders, whereas we have one simple faith based entirely on the teachings of Jesus Christ whom we believe was God's last prophet.
We do not believe that God would sent messengers into the world with conflicting messages. There was one faith in Israel and one faith in Christianity....we have one faith expressed in one global brotherhood where all believe the same things, and worship God Jehovah in the same way.