• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How are these Great Beings explained?

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Do you understand what taking credit means?

Attribute the progress to ...means taking credit.

take credit for something. to allow people to believe that one has done something praiseworthy, whether or not one has actually done it. I can't take credit for the entire success.

I think I know why you think a Baha'i takes credit from Bahaullah.

You see, in your sect of Hindusim, according to wikipedia you 'believe that Shiva is All and in all, the creator, preserver, destroyer, revealer and concealer of all that is.[15][14] He is not only the creator in Shaivism, he is the creation that results from him, he is everything and everywhere. Shiva is the primal soul, the pure consciousness and Absolute Reality in the Shaiva traditions'.[14]

You believe that God is also the creation, in addition to creator. In that case, when you see that as not separated from God, I would feel, you would be also taking credit for the things of God.

But in Baha'i Faith, it is believed the Creator is separate from His creation. There is no similarities between Him and any of His creation. At best, when a person, achieves the highest spiritual station, he comes to THE VALLEY OF TRUE POVERTY AND ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS. But this station is a very rare station. Bahaullah says:
This station is the dying from self and the living in God, the being poor in self and rich in the Desired One. Poverty as here referred to signifieth being poor in the things of the created world, rich in the things of God’s world. For when the true lover and devoted friend reacheth to the presence of the Beloved, the sparkling beauty of the Loved One and the fire of the lover’s heart will kindle a blaze and burn away all veils and wrappings. Yea, all he hath, from heart to skin, will be set aflame, so that nothing will remain save the Friend.


On the other hand I have to say, in a sense you are right that some Baha'is may feel proud and consider themselves better than others. This is certainly a defection. The Baha'i Writings states that at the end, the Baha'i people are not any better than the people of the past. We believe there is only one Perfect Being, who is God, and when He manifests Himself, or wishes to protect a chosen prophet, He does protect them against error or sin. But people like Abdulbaha are rare. We had only one in Baha'i Faith.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I think I know why you think a Baha'i takes credit from Bahaullah.

You see, in your sect of Hindusim, according to wikipedia you 'believe that Shiva is All and in all, the creator, preserver, destroyer, revealer and concealer of all that is.[15][14] He is not only the creator in Shaivism, he is the creation that results from him, he is everything and everywhere. Shiva is the primal soul, the pure consciousness and Absolute Reality in the Shaiva traditions'.[14]

You believe that God is also the creation, in addition to creator. In that case, when you see that as not separated from God, I would feel, you would be also taking credit for the things of God.

But in Baha'i Faith, it is believed the Creator is separate from His creation. There is no similarities between Him and any of His creation. At best, when a person, achieves the highest spiritual station, he comes to THE VALLEY OF TRUE POVERTY AND ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS. But this station is a very rare station. Bahaullah says:
This station is the dying from self and the living in God, the being poor in self and rich in the Desired One. Poverty as here referred to signifieth being poor in the things of the created world, rich in the things of God’s world. For when the true lover and devoted friend reacheth to the presence of the Beloved, the sparkling beauty of the Loved One and the fire of the lover’s heart will kindle a blaze and burn away all veils and wrappings. Yea, all he hath, from heart to skin, will be set aflame, so that nothing will remain save the Friend.


On the other hand I have to say, in a sense you are right that some Baha'is may feel proud and consider themselves better than others. This is certainly a defection. The Baha'i Writings states that at the end, the Baha'i people are not any better than the people of the past. We believe there is only one Perfect Being, who is God, and when He manifests Himself, or wishes to protect a chosen prophet, He does protect them against error or sin. But people like Abdulbaha are rare. We had only one in Baha'i Faith.

Wikipedia is an accurate portrayal of my sect, yes. You outlined the major difference between dualistic thinking and monism really well.

I agree that it is the individual who is proud or not. Some folks are, some aren't, in all religions. I think that's readily apparent. All religions that I know of view modesty as a virtue. Certainly I see that here, in this thread, as do you, I presume. From the beginning, I declared I don't believe in manifestations, or very special people, but it's also fine with me that you do. We Hindus do believe that some folks have reached enlightenment, or are Self-realised, but by definition, Abrahamic prophets are excluded from that, for several reasons. Of course, obviously, I note your right to see it differently.
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Stay well and happy CG, we have posted answers to that and many other questions, many times.

Well past time to leave this thread. Wonder if self will get in the way again.:oops:

Regards Tony
I don't know why you think your input isn't needed. Just because you're not getting immediate results, you don't know what effect you're having... Especially on those that are reading but not posting on this thread.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Baha'i do not take credit for them. They attribute the progress in sciences to God's holy Spirit released at the time of Revelation of the Bab and Bahaullah.
"In a tradition, knowledge consists of 20 and 7 letters and up to the Bab only 2 letters had been released. Thus the Bab released the remaining 25 letters of knowledge. Science would now have unlimited capacity and would rapidly increase."

I found this in Tony's thread about "1844".
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
So it's changed from this:
'Birth control, however, when exercised in order to deliberately prevent the procreation of any children is against the spirit of the Law of Bahá’u’lláh, which defines the primary purpose of marriage to be the rearing of children and their spiritual training in the Cause. The Universal House of Justice will have to consider this issue and give its verdict upon it.'

"The Universal House of Justice feels that the time has not yet arrived for legislation on this matter, and that these instructions provide sufficient guidance for the friends for the time being.

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of the British Isles, July 13, 1967)"
Good to know.

We need to look at all the writings to get a complete picture. There is nothing in the Holy writings that refers to birth control.

Another letter of the universal House of Justice:

"You and your husband, therefore, should have no feeling that you are obliged to add to your already large family. This is a matter entirely for you to decide, and there are many methods of preventing conception, including self-discipline and restraint, to which you can have recourse. Sterilization, however, would be a more far-reaching action than any of these, with implications and results beyond those necessary for the immediate purpose of limiting the size of your family, and is not permissible in Bahá’í law except in rare instances where it is necessary for a medical reason."(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, January 28, 1977)
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I've had the same thought about myself many times. But them I read another myth about my religion, and I remain. Aup is a staunch defender against lies, and I'm really glad he's on scene. You think I'm blunt? Just wait.

It will be good for us to have another Hindu contributing to this thread. Like you he may get hooked on this thread and hours of his life pass by responding to posts just like these.:D
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Nope.
Ingledsva has nailed all this............
Don't pay much attention to G-John, who was nowhere near events.
Yeshua was hoping to build up the support of the peasantry to force change, back to the old laws. That's insurrection, however reversed it may seem to be.

The authors of John were around much closer to Christ than you and @Ingledsva . I'll go with gospel writers.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
How about the world order of Baha'u'llah?
The world has not been ordered according to the desires of Bahaullah. Why should I read any trash? I said give me one teaching which the other religions do not have.
And what falsehood is that?
Bahai claim a prophethood for Krishna, that is a falsehood according to Hindu belief. Hindus believe Krishna to be the God incarnate himself. Of course, Hindus have many Gods (and Goddesses) apart from Vishnu/Krishna. Majority of Hindus are polytheists.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The authors of John were around much closer to Christ than you and @Ingledsva . I'll go with gospel writers.

Oh please!
A few of the oral-tradition carriers of G-John could well have been close to events, but their anecdotes and stories arrived, 70-90 later with John, living on a prison-island off Ephesus, and he had no clue about what was real, or where to place what in his imagined timeline.

By G-John, Jesus had changed from a peasant who started a campaign into a God, he no longer caste demons because that was hum-drum, G-John's Jesus brought the buried dead back to life.

In fact, G-John insisted upon all the 'stuff and nonsense' which you politely disclaim, then you tell me you'll 'go with gospel writers'.

It's 'Double Think'! I'm guessing that you can tell a Christian 'I go with the gospel writers!'.............. but you don't.

By all means trawl through the gospels for diamond-facts, but G-Mark is the only gospel that rings true, and only when seived of the evangelical add-ons.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
One huge reason I love Catholicism is because its a practice religion not a study one.

I think any religion that is worthwhile is much more practical than study. One of the places where religion stands or falls is whether their followers can live better lives. If religion can't do that, what's the point?

I couldnt get through Revelationa well when I first read the bible through.

Revelation isn't teachings for practical living like other parts of the bible. Its about prophecy in relationship to world events as they pertain to religion. Its there to be unsealed by those who claim to be the followers of the Returned Christ.

Catholicism you live it. So what you call symbolism of the Eucharist I see literal because when everyone comes together it makes christ spirit (and I believe in spirits) present in communion. Blood meaning life made literal sense since we cant live without blood. Wine has symbolism to blood and life in other cultures I remeber reading. Another things about blood is say when two soilders fight, they fight "for blood." The celebration of a good battle with wine and bread. Its a reacurrant theme of the literal nature of peoples religious thought are tied to food.

Its good you found a practice in Catholicism that worked for you, but there are other ways of approaching the practice of Christianity other than Catholicism. Understanding scripture and symbolism unlocks new perceptions and ways of practicing.

Roman Catholicism, via the saints and theologist writings as well as pope writings in the encyclicals helped a lot with abstract words such as love and such. Unlike Othorodox, they did find ways to describe the Eucharist and transubsatiation. Now I understand it literally.

That's good to understand it literally, providing you appreciate there are diverse approaches to the same scripture.

If god can do anything, why would a christian second guess jesus physical resurrection? That doesnt make sense.

Because there is a better way of understanding the resurrection that makes better sense to me, and others like me.

I was turned from christianity because of lack of belief in god not the bible. I couldnt find anything positive in the bible, does not matter if its analogy or literal, that Id want to apply to my life. The negativity and black and white view is a huge turn off.

It is a shame really. Christianity is part of our culture and who we are. I have continued to make the teachings of Christ part of who I am. It would be a huge loss not to have that.

I honestly dont know how it works for everyone else. Anyone can interpret thou shall not kill or murder anyway they want but the issue is that life-taking is in scripture whether it beba lesson or literal. Sacrifice is in scripture. The message of death brings life is a total turn off. Catholic history doesnt help. Protestants likewise.

I think its good for you to practice Buddhism. Maybe in the future you can look at the Teachings of Christ from a new perspective that isn't so negative.

Its a negstive religion that many people have been drawned to for centuries. Its like watching the Romans kill prisoners in the pit and the townsman cheer them on in their criminals sin. Id think we were pass that.

I wouldn't want any part of a religion like that for sure.

Eastern traditions take on a different approach. The Buddha isnt an athiest nor agnostic so I didnt switch because of that. He promoted life. Why would I follow someone who died to save when I know in order to save someone you have to be alive to do it? How can someone be saved by someone who died over a thousand years ago?

Then that sounds like the best religion for you at this stage in your life.

Some things are literal. If not, why are they facts and why debate them as if they are real?

Some things are literal, and others symbolic. We need to learn the wisdom to distinguish the two.

If its all symbolism, what are you really debating about?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The world has not been ordered according to the desires of Bahaullah. Why should I read any trash? I said give me one teaching which the other religions do not have.

You asked the question. Why ask if you can't be bothered reading the answer?

Bahai claim a prophethood for Krishna, that is a falsehood according to Hindu belief. Hindus believe Krishna to the God incarnate himself. Of course, Hindus have many Gods (and Goddesses) apart from Vishnu/Krishna. Majority of Hindus are polytheists.

Baha'is claim Krishna is a Manifestation of God. That's different from a prophet.

You are an atheist. You don't believe Krishna is God incarnate at all. The Baha'i belief about Krishna is more similar to the Vaishnavites than the atheists belief about Krishna.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Embellished things could also be seen as false events being added to the story. Baha'is somehow see the embellishments as symbolic, even though Christians have taught that the events really happened. But they never taught them as symbolic, so if they never happened, then the Christians are making up false events.

By that logic we accuse the writers of the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as being liars. But like any creation myth it was never intended to be taken as literally true.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh please!
A few of the oral-tradition carriers of G-John could well have been close to events, but their anecdotes and stories arrived, 70-90 later with John, living on a prison-island off Ephesus, and he had no clue about what was real, or where to place what in his imagined timeline.

By G-John, Jesus had changed from a peasant who started a campaign into a God, he no longer caste demons because that was hum-drum, G-John's Jesus brought the buried dead back to life.

In fact, G-John insisted upon all the 'stuff and nonsense' which you politely disclaim, then you tell me you'll 'go with gospel writers'.

It's 'Double Think'! I'm guessing that you can tell a Christian 'I go with the gospel writers!'.............. but you don't.

By all means trawl through the gospels for diamond-facts, but G-Mark is the only gospel that rings true, and only when seived of the evangelical add-ons.

Its true that the gospel of John has significant differences from the synoptic gospels. However it appears entirely consistent with every other book in the NT.

It is true that that the gospel of John has verses that Baha'is and conservative Christians would view differently. These include the Divinity and exclusivity of Christ. The relevant verses that can easily be interpreted in other ways as more liberally inclined theologians have.

I belief the authorship was more likely to reside with the Johannine collaboration than the apostle John.

I doubt if any of the gospel writers were first hand witnesses to most of the events recorded as we have previously discussed, so its all been passed on through oral traditions. That is how we have embellished myths woven into history. The resurrection story is an example.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
We need to look at all the writings to get a complete picture.

This just means to me, that there are many answers to the same question, often contradictory, and the adherent is free to pick and choose whichever one he/she wants to follow. To me, that is a good thing, as there are options.
 
Top