The irony in the Baha'i faith

[Vinayaka]

Loverof humanity is answering direct questions from another participant. Its all about the Baha'i Faith, but so too were the questions.

This thread is about the Baha'i Faith. Was it started by a Baha'i trying to Proselyte? No, it was started by a Hindu wishing to denigrate the faith of another. I'm here to defend my faith from slander and misinformation. As far as I can see so too are the Baha'i's here.

People ask questions. To assume the purpose is to denigrate is a jump. (It's possible, in my view, but not the norm) I don't assume that when you ask questions of me or when you ask questioned about other faiths, that your purpose is to denigrate. It might be, but most likely isn't. But yes, of course some folks do do that, but it's usually relatively obvious.

 

[Vinayaka]

I was only answering questions that I had been asked as accurately as possible.

Not that this was necessarily the case here, but sometimes I've seen people not answer the question, and go off on a tangent of proselytising that has nothing to do with the question at hand. So just because technically you're 'answering a question' doesn't always mean you really are. You might well be side-stepping the question in favour of something else.

The 'just answering the question' can be another technique just like the fake debate technique. But hey, at least you're not planting the questions, like some politicians do, and having Baha'is ask each other questions.

 

[oldbadger]

I wasn't indicating that all wealth is bad. I know a few wealthy people give creatively without thought of reward, and are really down to earth. My point was that the 'attitude' ones are found all over too. Overall, they're in the minority.

Well put.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To tell you honestly, Adrian. I can't tell what part of your faith is a difference of belief in and of itself and the difference in miscuing other religions and calling it a difference in perspective. Can't figure another way to put it.

An upgraded Baha'i version will better clarify the nature of god or Gods. That will naturally be inclusive of some 'God of Abraham' concepts while incorporating Hindu theistic concepts that will in all likelihood include Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu and avatars. Other concepts such as the Eternal Dharma and Karma will be central to a Hindu/Baha'i narrative.

Other than the progressive revelation chart, how do you distinctively define the abrahamic god and hindu god?

Mind you. I'm not sure whether these are differences in and of themselves (two separate rainbows) or are they bahai point of view of defining both gods the same but different perspective (colors of one rainbow).

Then they will reject a Baha'i/Hindu religion and choose another path. The choice of Sampradaya is a profound and personal choice.

Bahai/Hindu religion?

I'm not entirely certain what you are asking here.

I believe all genuine religion is derived from a common source. The language used to describe that source is strongly influenced by culture.

You answered it here. Outside of the progressive chart and metaphors, how do you define the god of hindu and god of abraham together?

Do you kinda see where the problem lies?

It's not arguing the difference of traits (well, to me I'm not) but the different sources under one god.

I know we have different beliefs "and" how is that reconciled in bahai faith?

The Muslims have tried and failed to incorporate the Hebrew Bible and New Testament with the Quran. They take the approach that only the Quran is the Word of God. They view the New Testament and Hebrew Bible as corrupted and superseded by the Quran. It is a good example of how NOT to integrate the former faiths (Christianity and Judaism) with the new.

Is this how bahai sees it too (though not in words such as corrupt etc)?
I ask because if not, the bible would be as is without metaphor to non metaphoric accounts.

(Given the connection between bahai and islam)

The Baha'i Faith has successfully incorporated the Hebrew Bible, New Testament and the Quran with the Baha'i Writings.

The suttas would be part of this?

How is that reconciled outside of Krishna being one god/source abrahamics believe in as well?

 

[oldbadger]

Well, the Baha'i Faith is an independent religion that emerged from the nineteenth century out of Persia. Its bound to have a few differences with Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity. The starting point for an interfaith dialogue is to accept and respect differences, not get upset and angry because we have a different worldview.

I think Baha'i is dependent, because it depends upon the line of Abrahamic religions.
It would be independent if it had sprung up from nothing else.
Just saying........

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps that a Hindu is not after numbers while the Bahais are, though Hindus do like to inform people of their various views.

how do you distinctively define the abrahamic god and hindu god?

God! May be some 5,000 Gods and Goddesses.

 

[George-ananda]

My current understanding of this is that all people will live in accordance with Bahá’u’lláh’s purposes and prescriptions, not that all people will become members of the Baha’i Faith, or that Baha’i spiritual assemblies will replace the governments. Different Baha’is have different views of that, but if the question is what is the leadership aiming for, I don’t think it’s aiming for Baha’i spiritual assemblies to replace the governments, or ever will. I don’t think that it’s aiming for all people to become members, or ever will.

You are there presenting what I call the western palatable form of the Baha'i Faith. For those of us that have dug deeper you will see Baha'i which is in coordination with things easily accepted.

The below that surface truth is that Shoghi Effendi (the official interpreter of the Faith) and its founders talk of a united mankind overwhelmingly under the 'Baha'i' banner. This is not just Baha'i concepts but the 'Baha'i' religion in name too (i.e. a Baha'i World Order).

 

[Aupmanyav]

George, you too know it. Why ask me questions?

 

[Jim]

You are there presenting what I call the western palatable form of the Baha'i Faith. For those of us that have dug deeper you will see Baha'i which is in coordination with things easily accepted.

The below that surface truth is that Shoghi Effendi (the official interpreter of the Faith) and its founders talk of a united mankind overwhelmingly under the 'Baha'i' banner. This is not just Baha'i concepts but the 'Baha'i' religion in name too (i.e. a Baha'i World Order).

If you think that Shoghi Effendi intended for all people to become members of the Baha’i Faith, or for Baha’i spiritual assemblies to replace the governments, then I disagree, but for discussion purposes let’s say that you’re right, that Shoghi Effendi and the founders thought of it that way. Is there anything more that you want to say about that? Do you think that the leaders are thinking that way now, and might find some way to convince the followers?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Not that this was necessarily the case here, but sometimes I've seen people not answer the question, and go off on a tangent of proselytising that has nothing to do with the question at hand. So just because technically you're 'answering a question' doesn't always mean you really are. You might well be side-stepping the question in favour of something else.

The 'just answering the question' can be another technique just like the fake debate technique. But hey, at least you're not planting the questions, like some politicians do, and having Baha'is ask each other questions.

I fully concur that in all cases where people talk about their beliefs vigilance is necessary lest we be conned and fooled.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There are quite a few differences between Hinduism and the Bahai faith. Let me pick out one for you.

1. Bahai's put Baha'ullah in the same category as Krishna.
2. Although, as you said there is no general consensus in Hinduism about the nature of God(s), many Hindus consider Krishna as (a) God according to the Bhagavad-Gita and the Bhagavatapurana
3. If Baha'ullah is in the same category as Krishna, then this would mean from a Hindu perspective (a) either, Krishna was a mere mortal or (b) Baha'ullah is God.

Some Baha’is consider both Bahá’u’lláh and Krishna to be a Manifestations of God and Avatars of Vishnu. As Manifestations of God they manifest God or mirror forth God’s attributes. An analogy is considering a sun and a mirror. If the Sun’s image was reflected in the mirror and the Sun were to say “I am God” the mirror would speak the truth. If the mirror were to say “I am just a mirror and not the sun” that would also be truth.

These are of course Baha’i beliefs about Krishna. We do not claim to represent Hindus or to say they are Hindu beliefs. However they do have important similarities to what some Hindus believe about Krishna.

Some Hindus of course believe Krishna to be an avatar of Vishnu too. They would consider Krishna to be an incarnation of Vishnu.

 

[Vinayaka]

I fully concur that in all cases where people talk about their beliefs vigilance is necessary lest we be conned and fooled.

I prefer a life where beliefs aren't talked about much at all. To me, it's mostly a private matter. Live and let live, as they say. But in lots of areas of life, a second or third opinion is helpful.

How do you people buy cars, for example? When i go out to buy a car, I tell the sales people up front the truth ... that I'm going to 4 more dealers, and then I'll name them. And I tell them to give me their best price now, because I won't be going back and forth for 3 days. I also tell them if they go see their boss and them come back with a higher price, that I'll walk right out the door, and yes, that has happened. So far it's worked well.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is no question of agreement or disagreement, when the thing does not even exist. What exists is Brahman \ physical energy \ space, and nothing else. That is what we started with at the time of Big Bang. I dont expect prophets \ sons \ messengers \ manifestations \ mahdis of by-gone ages to have known the truth. This is 21st Century.

That is the irony of Hinduism. Most Hindus believe in god or Gods yet another Hindu can state as a categorical fact there are no such God or gods.

 

[Dawnofhope]

People ask questions. To assume the purpose is to denigrate is a jump. (It's possible, in my view, but not the norm) I don't assume that when you ask questions of me or when you ask questioned about other faiths, that your purpose is to denigrate. It might be, but most likely isn't. But yes, of course some folks do do that, but it's usually relatively obvious.

Intent like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Vinayaka]

That is the irony of Hinduism. Most Hindus believe in god or Gods yet another Hindu can state as a categorical fact there are no such God or gods.

That's not irony, it's just diversity.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think Baha'i is dependent, because it depends upon the line of Abrahamic religions.
It would be independent if it had sprung up from nothing else.
Just saying........

That is true, but in considering comparative religion ‘independent’ would be considered seperate so not a sect or a denomination of the religion from which it emerged. In that sense Christianity is best considered an independent religion from Judaism. It is not a sect or denomination of Judaism though at an early stage may have been considered as such. So we wouldn’t usually say Christianity is a dependent religion but I see you point.

 

[CG Didymus]

1. As to God. This is how Baha’u’llah puts it.

There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God.

So He is saying no matter how we term it or understand it, it’s the same heavenly Source all religions derive their inspiration from.

Some people and their religions, hopefully, weren't inspired from some heavenly source. Religions that sacrificed children. Religions that cut out people's hearts on altars dedicated to their gods. Religions that threw people into volcanoes to appease their gods.

Actually the more each religion follows and obeys its own teachings the better humanity will be. So if all religionists , including Baha’i, strive to live according to what each religion teaches us we would have had world peace long ago.

Even in the Bible, the Israelites were supposed to keep the Sabbath. A person could be stoned to death for breaking the Sabbath law.

c) The scriptures of other religions we do not believe are distorted but interpretations can be distorted...

In the Book of Certitude Baha’u’llah points out that with so many copies having been distributed of Holy Texts actual physical distortion is well nigh impossible without being detected but by corruption of a text He said is meant ‘corruption of the meaning’. So some have twisted the meanings of Holy texts to provoke war which was never the real intention.

D) No Baha’is do not change any religious text. But we read them as devoted believers would because we believe in them too.

But Baha'is say that somehow the story about Abraham taking his son to be sacrificed got changed from Ishmael to Isaac?

The resurrection story in the NT got changed by Abdul Baha' to be completely metaphorical, so Baha'i don't believe them as Christians have traditionally believed them.

I have no problem believing that people have invented their own gods and religions. They've shaped them to fit their culture. Religious ideas and concepts of gods and God have evolved. Today, we can take the best of religion and get rid to the rest. By doing that, how different would the outcome be as compared to what the Baha'i Faith says?

Except, what if we do that to the good and the bad from the Baha'i Faith too? I don't think Baha'is would say that is possible to separate any of the Baha'i teachings, because, supposedly, they all came from God as revealed by Baha'u'llah. But, essentially, that is what Baha'is are doing to all the other religions. Baha'is take what they say is the "best" of the other religions and gets rid of the rest. Multiple Gods or no Gods? Gone. Avatars/incarnations? Gone. Satan? Gone. Reincarnation? Gone. Resurrection? Gone. Born sinful or with original sin, or with a sin nature? Gone. Therefore, the need for a savior to be sacrificed? Gone. And a lot of people would agree. Good riddance.

But, it's all replaced by new teachings about how things really are.... according to the Baha'i Faith. The old stuff from the old religions is changed. Isn't it? As Vinayaka says.... "Double-speak". Baha'is believe and don't believe the old religions at the same time,

 

[Nakosis]

Hi folks,

The irony in the Baha'i faith is that they, despite their claim to do otherwise, facilitate religious animosities or at least irritation between religious groups (at least against themselves) by devaluing other people‘s religious backgrounds, which by nature is a very personal thing and might easily lead to feelings of being offended.

Of course, in the first place, like any other people, Baha'is are individuals, but my intent is to describe what I see as an overall characteristic in that faith, regardless of any anecdotal evidence.

Please discuss.

Funny thing, I'd never know anything about the Baha'i faith except for these forums. The only thing, I suppose is the idea their religion/belief supersedes all others. I prefer individuality, intellectual diversity over inclusivity.

 

[CG Didymus]

What are the Bahais doing here by starting various topics each day and quoting lengthily from Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi and their House of Justice.

I am here to learn about different faiths and to have friendly conversations with peoples from other faiths, cultures and backgrounds. I am happy to share the little I know with others who are interested. I have no interest in trying to convince you or anyone else here to become a Baha'i.

Topics like (I'm exaggerating here) "Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have a Universal Language." "What if I told you Progressive Revelation is the truth." "What would the Second Coming look like? Wouldn't it look exactly like Baha'u'llah?"

But you know what... I don't mind it, because they have led to some great debate/arguing. But really, these topics sure seem like an attempt to "teach" the Baha'i Faith. And it's always going to sound like borderline proselytizing. And Baha'is don't care about making converts? Really? Then what is the purpose of "teaching"? It ain't bad. You think you've got the truth for today and nobody cares or knows about it. They are lost and don't know it. They are in false or virtually dead religions. They need to hear the truth. Right? Except that's exactly what "proselytizing" religions say.

I like it, though. Keep up the controversial topics. Just keep being creative on how to keep it under the radar from the proselytizing police. Oh, and another positive is that these topics have gotten Hindus here that would never have otherwise gotten involved. And I thank you for that. I've learned stuff from you Baha'is and them... and the other posters like Old Badger, Firedragon, and all the others.

 

[George-ananda]

I became a Baha'i during 1990 in New Zealand. I have no doubt the thinking you mention was how some Baha'is understood it. I recall expectation about how some cataclysmic and dramatic event would happen before the turn of the millennia and large numbers would come into the faith. That never happened of course. Its easy to get hyped up about the future and imagine what will happen. As I understand that is what Baha'u'llah referred to as 'vain imaginings'. I also recall Baha'is would talk about 'Kitab-i-hearsay'. That means stuff Baha'is believe that has nothing to do with the Baha'i Writings...like Krishna founded Hinduism or some overly simplistic view of religious history that sees a linear progression from Adam to Baha'u'llah.

Shoghi Effendi certainly talks about a time when large numbers of people throughout the world will become Baha'i's.

"... presage and hasten the advent of the day which, as prophesied by `Abdu'l-Bahá, will witness the entry by troops of peoples of divers nations and races into the Bahá'í world--a day which, viewed in its proper perspective, will be the prelude to that long awaited hour when a mass conversion on the part of these same nations and races, and as a direct result of a chain of events, momentous and possibly catastrophic in nature ..., will suddenly revolutionize the fortunes of the Faith, derange the equilibrium of the world, and reinforce a thousandfold the numerical strength as well as the material power and the spiritual authority of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh."

I can see how some Baha'is might read into these words the whole world will become Baha'i but it seems a stretch at best to me. Then we have no way of knowing when any of this will happen. How long did it take the disciples of Christ take to spread the Gospels to all the nations?

You are a proponent of something I would call perhaps Baha’i 2.0. However the Baha’i orthodoxy is strong in insisting on one Baha’i version. They will avoid conflict with the 2.0 Bahá’ís but when push comes to shove they will support Baha’i 1.0 in such conciliatory language the 2.0’s may still not realize it.