• 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!

The irony in the Baha'i faith

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
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
I'd agree.

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.
Denigrate? Careful, this might be fulfilling what the OP is saying.

I guess this is as good as it gets in admitting that the Baha'i faith doesn't accurately represent Hinduism.
But, if Baha'u'llah has infallible knowledge of anything he wants to talk about, why didn't he? It's almost like he wasn't all that concerned about what Hindus would think.

People ask questions. To assume the purpose is to denigrate is a jump.
Yes, Adrian, and other Baha'is are only "defending" their Faith from slander and misinformation? It sure seems like that is what Hindus are doing too, at least about the misinformation part.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I don’t think that Bahá’u’lláh, Abdu’l-Baha, or Shoghi Effendi ever intended for Baha’i spiritual assemblies to replace the governments, but for discussion purposes let’s say that they did. What difference does that make now, if most or all of the members aren’t thinking that way any more?
It shows the founders to be significantly errant in their vision and understanding. That is an important point in my consideration of the value of the revelation.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It shows the founders to be significantly errant in their vision and understanding. That is an important point in my consideration of the value of the revelation.
Here's a quote:
Baha’u’llah envisioned a time in the future when the peoples of the world will live together in peace and unity as members of one faith. Universal justice will be established based on adherence to the law of God. A new civilization based on spiritual values will come into being. He referred to this as the Most Great Peace.​
That sounds to me like Baha'is would rule the world.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Here's a quote:
Baha’u’llah envisioned a time in the future when the peoples of the world will live together in peace and unity as members of one faith. Universal justice will be established based on adherence to the law of God. A new civilization based on spiritual values will come into being. He referred to this as the Most Great Peace.​
That sounds to me like Baha'is would rule the world.
Well, yes that is the plan and prophesy.

But part of that prophesy is that the people of the world will willingly to almost a complete extent embrace this new faith and order and form a theocracy. It will be formed through overwhelming popular support. The question of any dissent is not anticipated nor well addressed.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don’t think that Bahá’u’lláh, Abdu’l-Baha, or Shoghi Effendi ever intended for Baha’i spiritual assemblies to replace the governments, but for discussion purposes let’s say that they did. What difference does that make now, if most or all of the members aren’t thinking that way any more?

It shows the founders to be significantly errant in their vision and understanding. That is an important point in my consideration of the value of the revelation.

Here's a quote:
Baha’u’llah envisioned a time in the future when the peoples of the world will live together in peace and unity as members of one faith. Universal justice will be established based on adherence to the law of God. A new civilization based on spiritual values will come into being. He referred to this as the Most Great Peace.​
That sounds to me like Baha'is would rule the world.

The key here is that the Most Great Peace was offered, it was rejected. Mankind fell well short of what they can be. The Most Great Peace is now to me, a distant future.

What is now on the Table is the 'Lesser Peace'. This peace will be built by the Governments of the world, but only when they submit to what Baha'u'llah revealed, as required for a Lesser Peace.

Thus we face this prophecy, "The world is in travail, and its agitation waxeth day by day. Its face is turned towards waywardness and unbelief. Such shall be its plight, that to disclose it now would not be meet and seemly. Its perversity will long continue. And when the appointed hour is come, there shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake. Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody."

I see that is what will be required for humanity to even consider the Lesser peace, let alone the "Most Great Peace". I expect that from what we are to bring upon ourselves, the will of humanity will be raised to pursue another path, another way.

It is recorded in a bit more detail as to how all this will unfold and the signs that will accompany that change. If you are interested CG, I will try to find the quotes.

Regards Tony
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
That's not irony, it's just diversity.
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.
Its an interesting perspective. I have served on Baha’i Assemblies for the last 20 years and currently serve on the Institutional of the Counsellors as an assistant for protection so I’m certainly very involved with the Baha’i community. In all honesty the possibility of most of the world becoming Baha’i or a Baha’i world government never gets mentioned. I don’t doubt there are a few older veteran Baha’is that still think that way.

It seems plausible that as per the paragraph from Shoghi Effendi the Baha’i Faith will become much larger than it is today. I can’t see it happening anytime soon but we can’t predict the future. The world is rapidly changing along with the communities we live in. Like most people I live in the here and now.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Its an interesting perspective. I have served on Baha’i Assemblies for the last 20 years and currently serve on the Institutional of the Counsellors as an assistant for protection so I’m certainly very involved with the Baha’i community. In all honesty the possibility of most of the world becoming Baha’i or a Baha’i world government never gets mentioned. I don’t doubt there are a few older veteran Baha’is that still think that way.

It seems plausible that as per the paragraph from Shoghi Effendi the Baha’i Faith will become much larger than it is today. I can’t see it happening anytime soon but we can’t predict the future. The world is rapidly changing along with the communities we live in. Like most people I live in the here and now.

I see that we view this Faith in the confines of the world we live in. It is a rare vision that can see beyond the conditions of the time and see what the future can be.

Personally as a Baha'i of the early 80's, I never had the vision of the world becoming Baha'i, but I do have a vision where it will emerge from obscurity to the stage where many from orthodoxy will arise to add slur to the noble intent. It is a complex quandary, because many that have done and will soon offer that blurred vision of the Baha'i Faith, do in their own Faith, wish to acheive the same noble goal of the unity and peace of all humanity.

Regards Tony
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Here's a quote:
Baha’u’llah envisioned a time in the future when the peoples of the world will live together in peace and unity as members of one faith. Universal justice will be established based on adherence to the law of God. A new civilization based on spiritual values will come into being. He referred to this as the Most Great Peace.​
That sounds to me like Baha'is would rule the world.

That is not a quote from the Baha’i writings of course but from Kenneth E Bowers. Admittedly the article says he serves on a national governing body but his opinion carries no more weight than anyone else’s. Let’s say what he says is true. Its a little light on specifics isn’t it?
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
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.

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

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,


It’s God, the Lord of all Religions Who makes all these judgements. We Baha’is accept whatever He decrees.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I'd agree.

Denigrate? Careful, this might be fulfilling what the OP is saying.

But, if Baha'u'llah has infallible knowledge of anything he wants to talk about, why didn't he? It's almost like he wasn't all that concerned about what Hindus would think.

Yes, Adrian, and other Baha'is are only "defending" their Faith from slander and misinformation? It sure seems like that is what Hindus are doing too, at least about the misinformation part.

Slander? Really? How so?

  1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
    "he is suing the TV network for slander"

    Similar:
    defamation
    defamation of character
    character assassination
    misrepresentation of character
    calumny
    libel
    scandalmongering
    malicious gossip
    muckraking
    smear campaigning
    disparagement
    denigration
    derogation
    aspersions
    vilification
    traducement
    obloquy
    backbiting
    scurrility
    lie
    slur
    smear
    untruth
    false accusation
    false report
    insult
    slight
    mudslinging
    bad-mouthing
    contumely
    h
    Opposite:
    acclamation
    praise
    • a false and malicious spoken statement.
      plural noun: slanders
      "I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders"
verb
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

It seems really easy to me. For Baha’is Hinduism is a religion of Divine origins. Hindus each have their beliefs about what Hinduism is or isn’t.

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).

As I understand both Baha’is (with an interest in Hinduism) and Hindus believe in Sanātana Dharma. Beyond that if we examine the structure of the universe there is diversity of beliefs in regards God or gods. Some branches of Hinduism are monotheistic. Some schools of thought will see Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma as difference aspects of the Divine. Hinduism sees itself as being able to accept diversity of beliefs. The biggest barrier is an aversion some Hindus have to the God of Abraham and many Abrahamics have to the many gods of Hinduism.

Bahai/Hindu religion?

The Baha’i Faith is well established in India and in most parts of the world where significant communities of Indian descent reside.

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?

I think I see the problem.

It is for Hindus to define for themselves how they define their god or Gods. For Baha’is it is clear. For Baha’is who also identify as Hindu let’s see what evolves. Unfortunately we don’t have any Baha’is here, to my knowledge, who grew up Hindu and then accepted Bahá’u’lláh.

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)

Baha’is and Christians both have their diverse beliefs about the Bible and how to interpret and understand it. There is a great deal in common but also some important differences, for example some Christians insist on a Triune God and a literal resurrection.

The suttas would be part of this?

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

I’m sure there is an abundance of Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita that is mostly consistent with Baha’i theology. There will be diversity of interpretations from both Baha’is and Vashnava. Same deal with other sects of Hinduism and with Suttas in Buddhism.

That is how I see it but admittedly my knowledge of Buddhism and Hinduism is sketchy.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
So, contrary to other Baha'i, you agree that Jesus of Nazareth was literally crucified, entombed, and resurrected, then ascended into heaven?
Because if you don't believe that, but believe instead that Jesus was metaphorically resurrected and ascended into heaven, you are "replacing", not "renewing", the authentic beliefs of the earliest christians..
I am saying, Bahais believe that, Original spiritual teachings of Jesus had been faded after thousands of years, and God renewed it through Bahai Faith.
Resurrection of Jesus, can be understood physically or metaphorically. The Authors of Bible did not say, they meant a physical resurrection. So, in Bahai view, the Bahai Writings in this case is just teaching what the Authors meant, by claiming that, Bahai Writings are divine revelation.
When Jesus came, The Authors of Bible interpreted many of the verses of the Old Testament differently than most Jews had understood over centuries. Did Christian bible replaced old testament or, did it correct the misinterpretations of jews?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It is for Hindus to define for themselves how they define their god or Gods. For Baha’is it is clear. For Baha’is who also identify as Hindu let’s see what evolves. Unfortunately we don’t have any Baha’is here, to my knowledge, who grew up Hindu and then accepted Bahá’u’lláh.

I'll come back in a bit. This stood out at me because this is what many on this board is kind of getting at.

...but bahai sees Hindu and Bahai source aligned with each other, so we wouldn't need to talk with a Hindu/Bahai.

A lot of their terms that define their god are in Sanskrit and totally in a language and mythology I don't understand. But I can kind of understand bahai because I'm familiar with abrahamic religions. Since bahai is saying both religions have one god, can you describe the god in which both Hindu and Bahai believe in?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The biggest barrier is an aversion some Hindus have to the God of Abraham and many Abrahamics have to the many gods of Hinduism.

I think the others are barriers, the definition of hindu god and abrahamic god are sources (they are the foundations to which all barriers on both sides rely); and, since they are so different (diverse?) that it's not really colors of a rainbow. It is a whole other rainbow altogether.

I’m sure there is an abundance of Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita that is mostly consistent with Baha’i theology. There will be diversity of interpretations from both Baha’is and Vashnava. Same deal with other sects of Hinduism and with Suttas in Buddhism.

I know each Hindu (and bahai etc) have different spin on their respective faiths; but, we at least got to give every one a benefit of the doubt when they speak of their own source(s) they are speaking for (and defending) their own beliefs.

Two Hindus (christian for that matter) don't need to follow the same incarnation to defend their beliefs in similar languages. For example, some christians believe jesus is god and others do not, but they both understand the existence of a creator so they can speak for more than one christian despite their differing perspective "of their own" religions.

I bought a bible to honor my deceased family. Since I'm not christian, I don't use it for spiritual purposes but I do value that most my family are christian and that I don't need to separate myself from that history while at the same time not following it.

We can respect each other's scriptures etc, even learn from them, etc., but to say they must have some of my beliefs in the bible because I haven't read all the scriptures (and history etc) based on them...?

That's a totally different animal there.

Anyway. The other short post was my main focus.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Firstly, there are a whole lot of people who do not even accept the existence of God \ Allah.

Secondly, leaving aside other religions, as a Hindu, I do not think my religion requires any renewal. That is basically saying that what you believe is wrong and what I believe is right. You or the founders of your religion hardly know Hinduism and you say that it requires renewal.

The Hindu mention of Kalki avatara is for ignorant people and fools. And those who created this promise took care to date it exactly 426,879 years from now, making sure that no imposter or charlatan would say that he is Kalki. If Bahaullah said that he is the avatara for Hindus than these two epithets would apply to him. So be careful.

Other religions have not given the date of the next coming, but in Hinduism it is crystal clear - at the end of Kaliyuga, 426,879 years from now.
Please quote from Scriptures, where it says Kalki comes 432000 years, or as you calculated 426879 years.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
So are all religions of the past distorted? If so, and the new religion, in this case the Baha'i Faith, had the "original" truth, why wouldn't they abrogate and get rid of those false beliefs? And isn't that exactly what Baha'is do? They tell all the previous religions how they are wrong. How they no longer have the "original" truth.

But, we have the Scriptures of all the major religions, so do Baha'is believe that those false teachings made their way right into the Scriptures of each previous religion? And since Baha'is don't believe some Scriptures of some of the major religions are "wholly" authentic, then you don't believe these Scriptures are trustworthy. So what is it that you do believe about all the other religions? It is obvious, you believe only what the Baha'i Faith says about the other religions. Which, of course, totally contradicts what people in that religion believe. But you don't "abrogate" or "distort" them? Yes, I can see that. From a Baha'i point of view, they've distorted their own religion. aha'is are just bringing back the "original" teachings.
Yes, Bahai Faith claims it has renewed the Original Truth, that previous Manifestations taught. It claims that the reason Jesus said, He comes again, is to renew and teach the Truth again. Of course, many Christian's may not agree. But did not Bible say, false teachers rise? Or the Buddha, did He not say His teachings will be lost, and someOne else come to restore it again? Or did not Muhammad say, after Him, the Mahdi comes to teach Islam again?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Slander? Really? How so?

  1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
    "he is suing the TV network for slander"

    Similar:
    defamation
    defamation of character
    character assassination
    misrepresentation of character
    calumny
    libel
    scandalmongering
    malicious gossip
    muckraking
    smear campaigning
    disparagement
    denigration
    derogation
    aspersions
    vilification
    traducement
    obloquy
    backbiting
    scurrility
    lie
    slur
    smear
    untruth
    false accusation
    false report
    insult
    slight
    mudslinging
    bad-mouthing
    contumely
    h
    Opposite:
    acclamation
    praise
    • a false and malicious spoken statement.
      plural noun: slanders
      "I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders"
verb
I meant that you were only defending Hinduism against misinformation. Did it sound like I was saying that you were slandering the Baha'is? You know that ain't right. That's my job... according to some Baha'is that is. Sorry if that's how it came out.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Slander? Really? How so?

  1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
    "he is suing the TV network for slander"

    Similar:
    defamation
    defamation of character
    character assassination
    misrepresentation of character
    calumny
    libel
    scandalmongering
    malicious gossip
    muckraking
    smear campaigning
    disparagement
    denigration
    derogation
    aspersions
    vilification
    traducement
    obloquy
    backbiting
    scurrility
    lie
    slur
    smear
    untruth
    false accusation
    false report
    insult
    slight
    mudslinging
    bad-mouthing
    contumely
    h
    Opposite:
    acclamation
    praise
    • a false and malicious spoken statement.
      plural noun: slanders
      "I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders"
verb

For me personally, I feel people here are mostly fair and tolerant and I really appreciate it.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Yes, Bahai Faith claims it has renewed the Original Truth, that previous Manifestations taught. It claims that the reason Jesus said, He comes again, is to renew and teach the Truth again. Of course, many Christian's may not agree. But did not Bible say, false teachers rise? Or the Buddha, did He not say His teachings will be lost, and someOne else come to restore it again? Or did not Muhammad say, after Him, the Mahdi comes to teach Islam again?
If you said that Baha'u'llah has come to bring the truth about God and what God wants... and that all the other religions have it wrong, I think I'd have less disagreements with the Baha'i Faith. But as soon as they throw in "original" teachings, it blows everything. They don't exist.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
For me personally, I feel people here are mostly fair and tolerant and I really appreciate it.
After Baha'is saying that some of us are "anti-Baha'i"... we have a "vendetta" against the Baha'is... we are biased against the Baha'is and so on... you and I think maybe Adrian were the only Baha'is that said that you appreciated the questions. This is a great opportunity for Baha'is. You've got Hindus right here, right now. If the Baha'is can't make friendships with Hindus, what hope is there for Baha'is uniting any of the other religions. I don't think it gets much more tolerant than that.
 
Top