How are these Great Beings explained?

[TransmutingSoul]

I expect that you might need to cling to the Walrus' s writings about this subject.

Let's cut to the truth..
Did the Bab mean it when he wrote it, or not?

If you really want, as you say "Let's cut to the truth..". Then the question you asked can only be answered by you and will require you to pursue the answer from the right sources.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Baha’is base their beliefs on their understanding that God is All Knowing and so His Words, Counsels, Advice and Teachings have a special mystical potency that ours don’t. That His Words are creative.

It is precisely because we believe God and man are not equal that we support the idea that God’s Words have a very special effect upon reality that ours don’t.

You avoided my comment entirely. Lots of other religious leaders say the same things, in different words, and contexts. He is not the only one. Dharmic faiths believe the core of man is identical to, or right in the presence of God. So perhaps that utopia you speak of is there, except it's on the inside of each individual waiting to be discovered, not just in external words of man.

Of the two Christian services I went to in my life, one really struck a chord. The preacher preached about giving, to the rich crowd of townfolk, all happy in their shared pride. It was disgusting to me, my wife, and the soul who is reborn as my son. So when we left we went and spent all the money in our wallets and bought food. Then we went to the down and out side of town to distribute it, the street where the churchpeople wouldn't dare go, lest they be seen amongst the riffraff. That cheered the three of us up some.

Regardless of how creative a teacher's words are, can you practice any of it?

 

[Vinayaka]

Winner!
As I read your post I was wondering which groups and religions could sit at table with others to discuss solutions without punching their own agendas.

The very first group to 'click' was The Quakers, and then others flowed in to mind as well.

Decades ago when my Bahai Wife was alive I would take her to Bahai meetings. Where to? The Quakers Meeting House............. Quakers would lend their premises for other religions to use, free of charge.

Lots of people of faith can. Back when I worked, there were always many Christians as colleagues. Probably more than half the staff. Most never mentioned it at all, and the few who did were often disliked.

 

[Vinayaka]

It certainly appears that way.



Fair enough.



You would have to ask LH about that, and how he feels.

Nine months later, here we all stand.

I have no problem with opposing views. However the spirit in which a discussion is held is just as important as the diverse beliefs we hold IMHO. For example the spirit of mutual respect and goodwill as opposed to animosity and indifference.

I agree. I hope LH is happy he put it here, and I hope there has been learning all around. Certainly, things like the non-Baha'is expressing how much we appreciate those who don't just throw quote after quote after quote our way must be sending a message.

 

[Vinayaka]

It might or might not clear explain things a bit better. But the reason behind it all was the oppression and injustices committed by these rulers and Baha’u’llah wanted it stopped.

Of course he did. What sane person wouldn't want torture stopped?

 

[Vinayaka]

Given the close association of each Manifestation has with God Himself, Their Revelation is from God.

Led by the light of unfailing guidance, and invested with supreme sovereignty, They are commissioned to use the inspiration of Their words, the effusions of Their infallible grace and the sanctifying breeze of Their Revelation for the cleansing of every longing heart and receptive spirit from the dross and dust of earthly cares and limitations.

Only if you're a Baha'i and believe that. Not applicable if you don't. In Dharmic faiths, the closer you get to God, the less you speak. There is no need. The contented happy smile of inner knowledge speaks volumes from the face of a sage.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

OK then please explain - when exactly did the first millennium begin and with what event? The creation/appearance/manifestation of Adam? What am I missing?

If the seventh millennium began in 1844 CE then I presume the first millennium began exactly 6000 years before that which would be the year 4157 BCE if we count according to the current calendar would it not? So what happened in 4157 BCE?

And if that date is not known precisely, as all the Baha'i documents I can find explaining the concept of universal cycles seem to indicate, how can you then claim that 1844 marked the exact year of the culmination of the 6th millennium and the start of the 7th?

For me to explain this subject would require writing a long post. Since I do not want to make it tedious, I will explain it gradually.
Here first I give you a few points, which we need to first agree on them, so I can go on farther to give a more specific answer.
The first point is, the truth of the events of the past does not always require that they are written in a history book, because we can know something has happened based on the signs we find later. For example, consider the Bing Bang. When it happened no body was there to note it down, and we can never find a history book that describes that such an event happened, but through discovery of signs, and logical deductions we can know it happened. I call this 'point A', because I would refer to it later on in my future post.
Point B: Now, to describe another important point, I give an example as follows:
Suppose 'you' tell me that this Friday at 1 pm, in the city of so and so, and the street so and so, I will see a man, who is wearing a black hat, a green pants, a white shirt...he speaks German, his age is between 20 and 30. You keep giving 100 signs specific to him.
Then I tell you, No! Impossible! Trash! There are so many people who speak German. Just because i will find a man who speaks German does not mean it is the person you a talking about. Then You tell me: but i did not say any man who speaks German will be him, I said when you see a man who has ALL the 100 signs, then it is him. Because how can in the same place and the same time there appears more than one person having all these 100 signs?!! Virtually impossible. And if I see such a person in the same place and time, how can I still deny it?
Now, let's not please go any farther to see how these are applicable to what we are discussing. But just lets agree on these Two points if you find it fair.

 

[oldbadger]

If you really want, as you say "Let's cut to the truth..". Then the question you asked can only be answered by you and will require you to pursue the answer from the right sources.

Regards Tony

You could not give a straight answer.

 

[oldbadger]

Lots of people of faith can. Back when I worked, there were always many Christians as colleagues. Probably more than half the staff. Most never mentioned it at all, and the few who did were often disliked.

As for Christians it could depend upon their particular Church, Denomination or Creed.
Some Brethren are commanded (in their Creed) to take their message to the World, but their culture seems to be one of remoteness and avoidance of others.
In the past I have seen them in a large group, standing in semi-circle and listening to a spokesman reading to them from his bible. Then they all just stare skywards. If any person speaks to them they do not respond, just keep looking upward.
But you'll never eat at any table with them. They eat amongst themselves, only.

 

[oldbadger]

You avoided my comment entirely. Lots of other religious leaders say the same things, in different words, and contexts. He is not the only one. Dharmic faiths believe the core of man is identical to, or right in the presence of God. So perhaps that utopia you speak of is there, except it's on the inside of each individual waiting to be discovered, not just in external words of man.

Of the two Christian services I went to in my life, one really struck a chord. The preacher preached about giving, to the rich crowd of townfolk, all happy in their shared pride. It was disgusting to me, my wife, and the soul who is reborn as my son. So when we left we went and spent all the money in our wallets and bought food. Then we went to the down and out side of town to distribute it, the street where the churchpeople wouldn't dare go, lest they be seen amongst the riffraff. That cheered the three of us up some.

Regardless of how creative a teacher's words are, can you practice any of it?

Very good!
A friend of mine works at a soup kitchen on Christmas Day, every year now.
He reckons it is the best Christmas that anybody can have.
He's an agnostic.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Where did Baha'u'llah say he would be "patient" with the Kaiser? Please provide a quote and/or reference. And how on earth do you suppose you know what the Queen may or may not have said about Baha'u'llah? He sent one letter to her and he got - how many replies - wait let's count - oh yes, that's right - none. My guess is that she completely ignored him - as I probably should have done if only I'd had a bit more sense!

I also want to tell you to do your own search on why Bahaullah did give Nasirudeen Shah, the Persian King, more time. He said since the Babis had attacked him, and this naturally caused him to have a bad feeling with regards to the Bab, therefor he deserves some more time, so before he dies, he had enough time to investigate the truth of the new Faith. The point is, since God is fair, according to the conditions of each person, He gives a fair amount of time to live in this world, so before he dies, he may have recognize the truth, and walk in the right way. For the same reason, and without we know its reason, Bahaullah gives him a lot of time to have the chance to do well before death. This is the meaning of "patient"
As regards to what the Queen said or not, you can search it. I remember she did not reject Bahaullah. She said if you are Truth, your cause will progress. Please find the info as i am sorry my time is limited.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You could not give a straight answer.

Firstly I have not looked in detail into this matter and personally I do not need to.

So the answer I gave is the greatest answer I can give you and I will seal it with these questions.

Have you gone back to see what this Tablet of the Bab might mean for your own self? What I read about it amazed me greatly.

That this Tablet is a commentary on a part of the Koran, do you see the Koran as the Word of God?

Do you see Muhammad in a favourable light?

If you answer those in the positive, then this work of the Bab may then be viewed for understanding.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

I also want to tell you to do your own search on why Bahaullah did give Nasirudeen Shah, the Persian King, more time. He said since the Babis had attacked him, and this naturally caused him to have a bad feeling with regards to the Bab, therefor he deserves some more time, so before he dies, he had enough time to investigate the truth of the new Faith. The point is, since God is fair, according to the conditions of each person, He gives a fair amount of time to live in this world, so before he dies, he may have recognize the truth, and walk in the right way. For the same reason, and without we know its reason, Bahaullah gives him a lot of time to have the chance to do well before death. This is the meaning of "patient"
As regards to what the Queen said or not, you can search it. I remember she did not reject Bahaullah. She said if you are Truth, your cause will progress. Please find the info as i am sorry my time is limited.

IT - this is a debate forum you don't get to send me away to do homework - if you make a claim you have to back it up with evidence.

You stated as evidence of the fulfillment of prophecy that Baha'u'llah said He was patient with the Kaiser. Now you either provide the reference for where Baha'u'llah said this or withdraw the point.

Likewise, with the Queen's acceptance or at least non-rejection of Baha'u'llah's message - please either post actual evidence that the Queen even read Baha'u'llah's letter or admit that it is just a made up story to fit the idea of the Queen's supposed favour in the eyes of Baha'u'llah.

I don't see what relevance the Shah thing has but it is a fact that the Babis plotted to assassinate the Shah and it is entirely inappropriate to suggest that it was divine patience that thwarted the attempt on the Shah's life. Under the circumstances it is hardly surprising that the Shah was intolerant of Baha'u'llah who was, after all, the new head of the murderous sect that had attempted to kill him. It is also unsurprising that the Shah was eventually assassinated given that regicide was not exactly uncommon in Persia - he was in fact the ninth Shah to have been bumped off in two centuries. He was also the longest reigning monarch of the Qajar dynasty and the third longest reigning monarch in the entire history of Persia. So if Baha'u'llah was predicting a premature fall from power, he got that wrong too - he lasted longer than any ruler of Persia bar one (Tahmasp I) in 1500 years.

 

[oldbadger]

Firstly I have not looked in detail into this matter and personally I do not need to.

OK........................

So the answer I gave is the greatest answer I can give you and I will seal it with these questions.

You open with questions, not close................

Have you gone back to see what this Tablet of the Bab might mean for your own self? What I read about it amazed me greatly.

Nothing that I do is just for myself.
The Bab's writings are mostly witheld in English unless translations and studies are made available by detached historians.

That this Tablet is a commentary on a part of the Koran, do you see the Koran as the Word of God?

I am a Deist.

Do you see Muhammad in a favourable light?

I have never studied Muhammad.

If you answer those in the positive, then this work of the Bab may then be viewed for understanding.

Everything about the Bab will be researched for a time. Such studies are already ranging far beyond your faith.

Regards Tony

And to you. OB.

 

[oldbadger]

IT - this is a debate forum you don't get to send me away to do homework - if you make a claim you have to back it up with evidence.

You stated as evidence of the fulfillment of prophecy that Baha'u'llah said He was patient with the Kaiser. Now you either provide the reference for where Baha'u'llah said this or withdraw the point.

Likewise, with the Queen's acceptance or at least non-rejection of Baha'u'llah's message - please either post actual evidence that the Queen even read Baha'u'llah's letter or admit that it is just a made up story to fit the idea of the Queen's supposed favour in the eyes of Baha'u'llah.

I went to look for evidence that Q Victoria received, read and/or repluied to any letters, but it seems as if any reply was mislaid.

I do expect that there would have been a reply. Q Victoria's private secretary would have seen any letters sent to her, and I expect that he would reply to some on her behalf in a diplomatic way.

Years ago I heard that She or her office did reply, something like 'If good it will grow, if not it will do no harm'. .... or something like that.

If you happen to ever write to Queen Elizabeth you will receive a reply! Yep!

 

[siti]

For me to explain this subject would require writing a long post. Since I do not want to make it tedious, I will explain it gradually.
Here first I give you a few points, which we need to first agree on them, so I can go on farther to give a more specific answer.
The first point is, the truth of the events of the past does not always require that they are written in a history book, because we can know something has happened based on the signs we find later. For example, consider the Bing Bang. When it happened no body was there to note it down, and we can never find a history book that describes that such an event happened, but through discovery of signs, and logical deductions we can know it happened. I call this 'point A', because I would refer to it later on in my future post.
Point B: Now, to describe another important point, I give an example as follows:
Suppose 'you' tell me that this Friday at 1 pm, in the city of so and so, and the street so and so, I will see a man, who is wearing a black hat, a green pants, a white shirt...he speaks German, his age is between 20 and 30. You keep giving 100 signs specific to him.
Then I tell you, No! Impossible! Trash! There are so many people who speak German. Just because i will find a man who speaks German does not mean it is the person you a talking about. Then You tell me: but i did not say any man who speaks German will be him, I said when you see a man who has ALL the 100 signs, then it is him. Because how can in the same place and the same time there appears more than one person having all these 100 signs?!! Virtually impossible. And if I see such a person in the same place and time, how can I still deny it?
Now, let's not please go any farther to see how these are applicable to what we are discussing. But just lets agree on these Two points if you find it fair.

This is a long post about nothing but for the sake of moving forward I agree that the Big Bang was not recorded in writing by anyone who was there at the time and that if I were to successfully predict the presence in a particular place on a particular day of a German-speaking man in green pants and black hat and fulfilling 100 signs that prove he is the man I am talking about you would not reasonably deny that this was indeed the man I was referring to.

Now please proceed to tell me what happened in 4157 BCE.

 

[siti]

If you happen to ever write to Queen Elizabeth you will receive a reply! Yep!

And if that reply fails to make any sensible and/or direct answer to any of the questions raised in my letter I will believe she has indeed accepted the Baha'i faith!

 

[siti]

There is no doctrine of infallibility in the Baha'i Faith.

Seriously? So it is entirely conceivable that Baha'u'llah could have made a mistake in his writings?

Another Baha'i principle is 'Religious truth is not absolute but relative'

So it is entirely conceivable that Baha'u'llah could have made a mistake in his writings?

Given the close association of each Manifestation has with God Himself, Their Revelation is from God.

Led by the light of unfailing guidance, and invested with supreme sovereignty, They are commissioned to use the inspiration of Their words, the effusions of Their infallible grace and the sanctifying breeze of Their Revelation for the cleansing of every longing heart and receptive spirit from the dross and dust of earthly cares and limitations.

Lost for words but these will do I think:

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You open with questions, not close................

My english skills are not good. Should I say I seal the relevance of the answer with these questions?

Nothing that I do is just for myself.
The Bab's writings are mostly witheld in English unless translations and studies are made available by detached historians.

Given what has happened with Muhammad and the Koran, that will be some time.

To Understand a Lot of what the Bab Wrote one needs a deep knowledge of Muhammad and the Koran. Thus we await the day more Muslims embrace the Bab and Baha'u'llah before the beauty of all Gods Words are brought to light.

I am a Deist

Yes, this makes it even harder to see what these passages are saying.

I have never studied Muhammad.

That makes knowledge if the Bab's Writings extremely difficult and why to date I have mainly read only authorised translations' that I can have any chance of understanding.

Some one linked a translation of the Bayan on one site, I read a bit but hesitated. How do I know the Translation is accurate? Why I think this way, is that I consider how many Muslims hostile to the Faith have translated both the words of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'lbaha, that makes me even more cautious.

Everything about the Bab will be researched for a time. Such studies are already ranging far beyond your faith.

That is why many writings await the people with the required skills, detachment and motive and time.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

Likewise, with the Queen's acceptance or at least non-rejection of Baha'u'llah's message - please either post actual evidence that the Queen even read Baha'u'llah's letter or admit that it is just a made up story to fit the idea of the Queen's supposed favour in the eyes of Baha'u'llah.

You can leave this question @InvestigateTruth, I have found the answer from the Research Department and UHJ and the Guardian himself:

The Research Department has been able to find a statement in a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, specifically regarding the reaction of Queen Victoria to the Tablet addressed to her:

...as we have no written statement to this effect, we cannot be sure about it. We do not know where the original of this statement is.
(21 February 1942 to an individual)
​

Napoleon III and Queen Victoria, Responses to the Tablets of Baha'u'llah

So as I suggested, it really does appear that Queen Victoria's supposed Gamaliel-like response is apocryphal.

Incidentally, they've known this since 1997 and yet the claim that Victoria responded along the lines of "if this is from God it will last, if it is not it can do no harm" has not been deleted from any Baha'i documents and, indeed, has been perpetuated in books and articles written since then.