• 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!

Why Bahai

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I see I was born, but yet to live. I see we are born from one Matrix into another.
Yeah, death is an illusion and so also is birth. Nothing that constitutes me will be dead when people will say that I am dead. All the sub-atomic particles in my body will keep on whirring just like before. In time, they will be part of billions of other things, living and non-living. I will be omnipresent. Do I know where these individual atoms will go? I was born and grew up in the same way, taking things from various sources.
I see we are formed in the same way, part of the same system, but the atoms that give you form are not the atoms that give me form. This body dies and the atoms disperse to form again as?

In this process I see we are given Soul/Spirit at conception, one could say an individual atom of mind/soul. I see this life is development of that atom, to join that atom with the whole. The Bible calls it being born again.
Go a little deeper in science and the concept of atoms dissolves. These are just waves of physical energy. Your form or mine is but a temporary illusion, it is a distortion of the truth. As I said in my earlier post, they would join a billion other things. Perhaps a tree would inhale the carbon-di-oxide that was formed by cremation of carbon in my body. Perhaps the water in my body will rain on a grass field. Perhaps a deer would eat that grass and will have what was once a part of me.

Just like God/Gods, soul is another falsehood created by theists. Mind is the working of a brain. Yeah, we are born again and again and die in this way. It is a chemical/biological process. No helping hand from any God or any of his representative is required in the process.
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Like Terry Sampson said, "Bahais are good contortionists".

Not really. Having been a Baha’i a while its easy to spot misinformation. Quora isn’t a reliable source. But if you want to believe Baha’is see Bahá’u’lláh as one small step away from God Himself, go ahead.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
These are just waves of physical energy. Your form or mine is but a temporary illusion, it is a distortion of the truth.

Now your explaining of what I see is Spirit, it is the energy that brings the letters B & E together. It is from this, that creation enemates from and, yes, I see creation is the illusion, each person constructs and processes what they perceive.

The more we talk and discuss, the more we discover.

Regards Tony
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There you go! OB's rule...... reverse everything Bahai.
You wrote 'Baha'u'llah taught specifically...' and then show that he specified nothing.

I know, just like Paul is the scripture of Christianity?
:facepalm:

No there is direct relationship of Paul to Jesus Christ. There is for Shoghi Effendi. Shoghi Effendi had a personal one on one relationship with Abdu'l baha, and Abdu'l baha had the same relationship with Baha'u'llah. No such relationship ever existed between Paul and Jesus.

What a joke.
This is a typical example of his great grandson reversing stuff in to Bahai that Bahauallah didn't write.
Bahauallah is really Muhammud Jesus Krishna Zororaster, eh?
This is like back in the late 60's when Bahai would be anything you liked, just join up. But it wasn't and it isn't, it's a would-be World Ruler based upon a Theocracy.

More misinformation; Shoghi Effendi is the Grandson of Baha'u'llah. It is understood that you do not believe in the Baha'i Faith and resort to an acrid aggressive diatribe against the Baha'i Faith.

Baha'u'llah

"the Manifestations of His Divine Glory. . . have been sent down from time immemorial, and been commissioned to summon mankind to the one true God. That the names of some of them are forgotten and the records of their lives lost is to be attributed to the disturbances and changes that have overtaken the world" (Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, 174). This statement is important because it makes it clear that religions other than the ones possessing known Manifestations may have been divinely established. In addition to the historic figures already listed, Bahá'u'lláh mentions Húd and Sálih--legendary figures who appeared to Arab tribes, and who are also mentioned in the Qur'án--as Manifestations. They may be seen as examples of Manifestations to primal religions, as the religions of the tribal peoples of the world are often called by religious scholars. While Bahá'u'lláh was not asked about other Manifestations, such as to the African, Chinese, native American, and ancient Indo-European peoples, it is reasonable to assume, based on Bahá'u'lláh's statement above, that Manifestations came to them as well. Based on a statement of 'Abdu'l-Bahá that "in cycles gone by. . . continents remained widely divided, nay even among the people of one and the same continent association and interchange of thought were wellnigh impossible" (Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, 31) the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice has concluded that "it would appear possible that Manifestations of God have lived simultaneously in different areas of the globe" (Research Department memorandum to the Universal House of Justice titled "Questions Relayed by the Spiritual Assembly of Mitcham," dated 24 May 1988).[2]

Abdu'l baha From Some Answered Questions.

Question.—How many kinds of Prophets are there?
1 At present in some of the Christian churches many pictures and images exist. It is, therefore, clear and evident that the Religion of God does not maintain its original principles among the people, but that it has gradually changed and altered until it has been entirely destroyed and annihilated. Because of this the manifestation is renewed, and a new religion established. 166 But if religions did not change and alter, there would be no need of renewal.
In the beginning the tree was in all its beauty, and full of blossoms and fruits, but at last it became old and entirely fruitless, and it withered and decayed. This is why the True Gardener plants again an incomparable young tree of the same kind and species, which grows and develops day by day, and spreads a wide shadow in the divine garden, and yields admirable fruit. So it is with religions; through the passing of time they change from their original foundation, the truth of the Religion of God entirely departs, and the spirit of it does not stay; heresies appear, and it becomes a body without a soul. That is why it is renewed.
The meaning is that the Buddhists and Confucianists now worship images and statues. They are entirely heedless of the Oneness of God and believe in imaginary gods like the ancient Greeks. But in the beginning it was not so; there were different principles and other ordinances.
Again, consider how much the principles of the religion of Christ have been forgotten, and how many heresies have appeared. For example, Christ forbade revenge and transgression; furthermore, He commanded benevolence and mercy in return for injury and evil. Now reflect: among the Christian nations themselves how many sanguinary wars have taken place, and how much oppression, cruelty, rapacity and bloodthirstiness have occurred! Many of these wars were carried on by command of the Popes. It is then clear and evident that in the passage of time religions become entirely changed and altered. Therefore, they are renewed."
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I have replied to this before.

You are perfectly free to see it that way, but I see the world as we and as like a family, it is a diversity. I see We are in this life together and as a whole, we need to be like a family and as such we would want to look after each other. Thus we can then do good as a whole, or we can do not so good as a whole. Or, then we could also choose to individualise those choices, in our participation with the whole. I see this is the way you choose to see it, that your good is an individual choice and not a necessary part of the whole family of man.

Regards Tony
Like I said, I didn't have high hopes for you to understand simple courtesy. Oh well. Continue to speak on behalf of humanity.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Frankly, you are admitting right here that you have no idea of what Dharma is.

That is by itself reason enough to refuse the Bahai take on the Dharmics.

Indeed.

Indeed . . . I have not even remotely described nor addressed what Dharma in my posts.

Still waiting . . . for you to address the substance of my post, and of course, admitting your selective hostility toward the Baha'i Faith over other religions which you choose to selectively defend and and protecting ALL religions.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I am surprised really. Is not that the scripture of the Bahai faith? Or is it because I am quoting the arabic name? Kithab I Akdhas.

Selective citations does not justify your argument against the Baha'i Faith unless you have an understanding of the Baha'i writings in a broader context, which is an issue here of many of the detractors of the Baha'i Faith with an up front agenda.

Basically you have failed to respond my posts with citations that offer a broader understanding of Baha'i writings and beliefs for obvious reasons.

It is obvious you do not believe in the Baha'i Faith, and in fact take a rather hostile agenda, but the citations I provided reflect the writings and the beliefs of the Bah'i Faith.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I am surprised really. Is not that the scripture of the Bahai faith? Or is it because I am quoting the arabic name? Kithab I Akdhas.
You mean the Kitab-I-Aqdas or Most Holy Book for the Baha’is. As with the Quran for the Muslims, Baha’is see Bahá’u’lláh’s Writings as the Word of God. I don’t speak Arabic, sorry.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Your false sense of humility and politeness does not mask your up front anti-Baha'i agenda and overt sarcasm.

My comment was addressed at another poster. To your credit, you don't use 'we' chronically, when giving personal opinions. and I appreciate that.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The phrase Rasool as I understand it means Islamic Prophet or Messenger.
You mean the Kitab-I-Aqdas or Most Holy Book for the Baha’is. As with the Quran for the Muslims, Baha’is see Bahá’u’lláh’s Writings as the Word of God. I don’t speak Arabic, sorry.

Oh no. I just mentioned the arabic phrase. Its the same. Also since I thought that the book was written originally in Arabic. Kithab I akdhas is Persian. Al Kithab al akdhas is arabic. Same meaning. The holy book. Or in terms of word for word "The book, the holy".
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh no. I just mentioned the arabic phrase. Its the same. Also since I thought that the book was written originally in Arabic. Kithab I akdhas is Persian. Al Kithab al akdhas is arabic. Same meaning. The holy book. Or in terms of word for word "The book, the holy".

The Kitab-I-Aqdas was written in Arabic but given a Persian title.

Kitáb-i-Aqdas - Wikipedia
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Indeed . . . I have not even remotely described nor addressed what Dharma in my posts.

Still waiting . . . for you to address the substance of my post, and of course, admitting your selective hostility toward the Baha'i Faith over other religions which you choose to selectively defend and and protecting ALL religions.
I think that I have been plenty clear enough.

The Abrahamic conception of creed is just too self-limiting, and not a suitable vessel for dharmic contents, IMO. And it turns out that the Bahai Fait insists on keeping it.

There is hardly any mystery there.

I have also pointed out, very often, that there is no such thing as protection of "all" religions; the decision of what to acknowledge as a religion is unavoidably arbitrary.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The Kitab-I-Aqdas was written in Arabic but given a Persian title.

Kitáb-i-Aqdas - Wikipedia

Presuming you read it, the book refers to rasools many times. I just cant seem to find the same reference in the English translation directly from verse to verse because it does not seem to be the same. How do I give a reference.

Anyway, who is this Akram Rasool that the holy book is referring to all the time?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Selective citations does not justify your argument against the Baha'i Faith unless you have an understanding of the Baha'i writings in a broader context, which is an issue here of many of the detractors of the Baha'i Faith with an up front agenda.

Basically you have failed to respond my posts with citations that offer a broader understanding of Baha'i writings and beliefs for obvious reasons.

It is obvious you do not believe in the Baha'i Faith, and in fact take a rather hostile agenda, but the citations I provided reflect the writings and the beliefs of the Bah'i Faith.

Which argument did I pose?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
You could show some paragraphs written by Bahauallah, possibly?

This is a translation and cannot copy text.
Screenshot 2019-09-12 at 6.17.26 PM.png
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Been here before OB :)

It appears you prefer your take on this subject.

One has to remember that the laws of the Bayan were transitional and subject to the approval of the 'One whom God would make Manifest'.

Thus the Bab'i were still operating under Muslim law and defence of Faith.

They did not pursue but in defense and the stories of the sieges are all available.

But one of course can take the enemies side as gospel, those that broke their oaths given on the Quran over the Bab'i that gave their lives in respect of the Quran.

Regards Tony
Hello Tony......
How do you spell ''colleywobblers'?
 
Top