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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not necessarily. These folks often prefer to create the smaller "family" type cult, where they can have maximum control over every member, including sexual control. And in the end, as the leader's ego is limitless, they want total control: over the life and death of their 'followers'.
Define religion in the context of your post what the term religion means, please.
You're the second Baha'i in the thread to put forward this idea. Is this a standard Baha'i position?
Yes, I think sincere charismatic leaders are common, but I was referring to someone who was deluded and believed that he had communication with God when in fact he didn't have any.
I do not agree that the Messenger is irrelevant but I do think that the merits of any given teachings he brings should be gauged and stand on their own. I do not believe in doctrines.
Unfortunately, i encounter many charlatans who make the Jewish religion sound like a charlatans' religion, but this does not mean that the religion itself is false 
What I said is that we cannot know another person’s motives unless they tell us their motives. If you told me your motives I would believe you, as long as I trusted you. Likewise, I believe Baha’u’llah when He wrote what His motive was: “I have wished nothing whatever for Myself. What I have wished is the victory of God and the triumph of His Cause.” Gleanings, pp. 256-257
That is true. It would not necessarily be the case, but it might be the case. Pious frauds are still frauds if they claim something that is not true. On the other hand, if they actually believed they got a message from God, then they would just be deluded, not lying.
No, not taking multiple wives because one cannot assume that a man had multiple wives in order to have more sex. It could have just been customary in that culture. What I meant was someone like Jim Jones:
I said probably, but not necessarily, and I am thinking of some frauds I know. I am sure there are others who do not have these kinds of lives.
That is a good point, but not all frauds are intelligent enough to take those steps, and they would know that some people would not be smart enough to figure out that living a palatial lifestyle probably means his motives are not godly. Besides, the kind of frauds I am thinking of would not be able to subjugate their desires so they would want to live high on the hog.
That is true, if they were trying to hide their deception, but the ones I am thinking of, like Jim Jones and others like him, would not be trying to hide anything. Plenty of people have followed these cult leaders in spite of the fact that it was obvious that their characters and lifestyles were selfish and immoral. Compare their lives to the lives of Jesus or Baha’u’llah.
You raise a good point. There are false prophets who genuinely believe that they got messages from God and they are pious and sincere, so this brings up a very important point: How can we know which claimants actually got messages from God (if any did) and which ones didn’t get any messages from God?
Again, these are just some characteristics he might have, but not necessarily.
Good point. That could be true of a charlatan, but it could also be true of a real Messenger of God. However, a real Messenger of God would probably not ever talk about how large or small His religion had grown because it would not matter to Him since he would know that the religion was revealed by God, so He would know that it would go forward according to God’s Will. He might say something like this:
That is true again, he would not necessarily tell people not to investigate his claims, not unless he was insecure about his claims. He might tell them to investigate his claims just so he will appear to be sincere.
That’s true; he would not necessarily do what I said. He might or might not. I was thinking of those who have between in the press, not those charlatans I do not know about. Can you think of any names of men who have made claims to speak for God and garnered followers?
I fully agree. It would require a thorough investigation of his life and his teachings. The investigation should not end there; we should also look at the history surrounding the alleged prophet and his mission on earth. We would also want to look at the religion that was established in his name and what the followers are doing.
That is a good point. There is no way we can ever know that what came by way of oral tradition was the actual truth about the alleged prophet, and it is logically impossible that the words ascribed to him were his words unless he wrote them himself and they have been authenticated.
I do not find anything surprising since humans are capable of believing and doing anything.
Teachings are the actual scriptures of a religion that were revealed by God and doctrines are man-made.
I do not find anything surprising since humans are capable of believing and doing anything.
Teachings are the actual scriptures of a religion that were revealed by God and doctrines are man-made.
Meanwhile, I find that it is an actual duty for adherents to care for the validity of the doctrine by continuously transcending their own scriptures...
1. Only a certain amount of people in a certain geographical area or culture believe in the messenger /prophet /religious doctrine .
Really? Wow, what an epiphany!
And I do not have it in me to think that scripture is not important although I have it in me to think that doctrines are not important since I believe they are man-made and false.
I do not want to transcend the scriptures, I want to understand them. As for doctrines, Baha'is do not have any.