The irony in the Baha'i faith

[Aupmanyav]

Just because someone is enrolled a Baha’i doesn’t mean they believe in God anymore than someone attending the Catholic Church believes in God.

Kindly explain. What then is necessary? Belief in Bahaullah? But if you believe in Bahaullah, then you cannot escape the belief in One Allah? If you do not believe in existence of Allah, then you also cannot not believe that Bahaullah was the manifestation of any Allah? Now tell me, who is confused, you or me?
As I said, truth alone wins, not untruth - "Satyam eva jayate, na anritam".

 

[Dawnofhope]

What would you consider as fact? A tradition that is older than 3,000 years or the claims of two recent upstarts who go against the Hindu tradition, and one who is not even a member of any recognized Hindu monastic order (Jaggi Vasudev)? That the title of Paramahansa was added to the name of Yogananda by his disciples, and does not make him into anything super-human.

Yukteswar's guru Lahiri Mahashaya claimed that he was instructed by one Mahavatara Babaji who is immortal and actually Lord Shiva, and who keeps on appearing to people at various times. Again no evidence, just statement of these people. Only a fool will believe in these tall stories. No different from Bahaullah claiming the visit o the Maid of Heaven.
Mahavatar Babaji - Wikipedia, Lahiri Mahasaya - Wikipedia, Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri - Wikipedia, Paramahansa Yogananda - Wikipedia.

Perhaps we could agree the earth revolves around the sun as a well established fact. Yet for over a thousand years people assumed the earth to be the centre of the universe. So just because a tradition is 100 or 10,000 years old doesn’t make it fact and should a certain truth be established this year we should not discount it because it is new.

I agree we should be skeptics in regards all religious claims. We should adhere to science and reason. If a religious text speaks of people living thousands of years old don’t take it as being literally true.

As previously stated we agree there is no reasonable basis for the Kali-yuga ending hundreds of thousands of years from now. One Hindu make one claim and another contradicts it. That is no basis for arriving at certainty. Certainly the wisest statement we can make based on agreed facts is we cannot be certain when Kali-yuga will end, if it has ended or even if it really existed in the first place.

Just because the Baha’is claim the Kali-yuga has ended and the Kalki Avatar has come we have on way of objectivity establishing this as true or false based on any of the information presented in this thread.

You are an atheist and don’t believe in Avatars. I am a theist and believe in Krishna and Christ as manifestations of God. However they are beliefs and can not be objectively accepted or refuted. Your belief is yours as mine is mine. So let us live and let live.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Kindly explain. What then is necessary? Belief in Bahaullah? But if you believe in Bahaullah, then you cannot escape the belief in One Allah? If you do not believe in existence of Allah, then you also cannot not believe that Bahaullah was the manifestation of an Allah? Now tell me, who is confused, you or me?

Neither of us is confused but you haven’t understood my point. There is a distinction between what we believe and being an enrolled member of a religious community. For example significant numbers of Christians are atheists but continue to attend church as its cultural. You may attend Hindu temples were there is worship of God or gods. That doesn’t make you a theist. You do that because its tradition. Does that make sense?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You may attend Hindu temples where there is worship of God or gods. That doesn’t make you a theist. You do that because its tradition. Does that make sense?

I generally do not go to temples, it has been years since. Even when I go to temples, it is more like a Christian tourist visiting them, just to have a look around. But I am still a staunch atheist Advaitist Hindu. IMHO (others may differ), being an atheist is a requirement of Advaita (non-duality, no second, how can I accept the existence of Gods and Goddsses?).

As previously stated we agree there is no reasonable basis for the Kali-yuga ending hundreds of thousands of years from now. One Hindu make one claim and another contradicts it. That is no basis for arriving at certainty. Certainly the wisest statement we can make based on agreed facts is we cannot be certain when Kali-yuga will end, if it has ended or even if it really existed in the first place.

Just because the Baha’is claim the Kali-yuga has ended and the Kalki Avatar has come we have on way of objectivity establishing this as true or false based on any of the information presented in this thread.

You are an atheist and don’t believe in Avatars. I am a theist and believe in Krishna and Christ as manifestations of God. However they are beliefs and can not be objectively accepted or refuted.

Actually there is no reason to even believe in the existence of Yugas and as a person of science and as an atheist, I completely reject it. Satya Yuga is believe to have started 4,315,000 years ago. Do they mean that there were Homo sapiens sapiens at that time? At that time only Australopithecines (5.6 - 1.2 mya) existed. So all this talk of yugas and Bahaullah being the Kalki in Kali Yuga comes to a naught. Yukteshwar and Yogananda were not aware of that (there was no Wikipedia at that time) and Jaggi Vasudev also does not know that.

You believe in Krishna, Buddha and Jesus only to add at the end that Bahaullah has something new from his non-existent Allah - for your own benefit.

See more Australopithecines at: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=A...0rBSgQ_AUoAXoECBMQAw&biw=1600&bih=790#imgrc=_

 

[Jim]

Not all bahai believe in a creator and bahaullah's writings?

No.

 

[Jim]

Neither of us is confused but you haven’t understood my point. There is a distinction between what we believe and being an enrolled member of a religious community.

This.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is a distinction between what we believe and being an enrolled member of a religious community. For example significant numbers of Christians are atheists but continue to attend church as its cultural.

You mean fake Christians and fake Bahais? Why should anyone be like that? Munafiqun? Do not have courage enough to accept and declare that they do not believe what their religion wants them to believe? Will such persons loose their culture if they were not members of their churches and mosques? IMHO, a person's culture (Samskaras in Sanskrit) is tougher than that, it is ingrained deeper.

BTW, why do Bahais term their place of worship as a 'temple'? Bahais forked from Islam, Bahai name for their Supreme being is Allah (Bahaullah). Is the term 'mosque' wrong for any reason? You want to distance from Muslims? In the thousands of posts in this forum, I have not seen even one Bahai to use the word 'Allah'. Do you hate to use the word 'Allah'? Or is it to deceive the Christians that you have nothing to do with 'Allah'?

 

[Jim]

You mean fake Christians and fake Bahais? Why should anyone be like that? Munafiqun? Do not have courage enough to accept and declare that they do not believe what their religion wants them to believe? Will such persons loose their culture if they were not members of their churches and mosques? IMHO, a person's culture (Samskaras in Sanskrit) is tougher than that, it is ingrained deeper.

BTW, why do Bahais term their place of worship as a 'temple'? Bahais forked from Islam, Bahai name for their Supreme being is Allah (Bahaullah). Is the term 'mosque' wrong for any reason? You want to distance from Muslims?

My reason for being a member is because I think that I can serve my master teacher’s purposes better that way. I don’t want to distance myself from Muslims. Baha’i’ and Muslim institutions agree that Baha’is are not Muslims, so I don’t see any reason to call our houses of worship “mosques.” Most or all the other religious call some of their buildings “temples” so I don’t see how it can be wrong for us to do the same.

 

[Sirona]

My reason for being a member is because I think that I can serve my master teacher’s purposes better that way. I don’t want to distance myself from Muslims. Baha’i’ and Muslim institutions agree that Baha’is are not Muslims, so I don’t see any reason to call our houses of worship “mosques.” Most or all the other religious call some of their buildings “temples” so I don’t see how it can be wrong for us to do the same.

Although Jahwe had a (Jewish) "temple" as well, "temple" mainly connotes a place where "idols" of (mostly) non-Abrahamic gods are worshiped with physical sacrifices placed on altars, like incense, flowers or meat (ancient Greek temples). The word "templum" is Latin and comes from the Ancient Romans, who originated as a polytheist people.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Just because someone is enrolled a Baha’i doesn’t mean they believe in God anymore than someone attending the Catholic Church believes in God.

That's weird. Someone intending the Catholic Church made a "pack" that they would ideally believe in God and the church. The religion itself is specific to belief in God so regardless if individual person's believe in God or not, that doesn't change the theology of the church.

I assume people who follow Baha'i teachings would ideally believe in God that bahuallah worships. A person's individual disbelief in God shouldn't change the theology that being a Baha'i that would be one of the central requirements?

Unless people's individually beliefs define Baha'i teachings?

That would make the religion convoluted and hard to understand what Baha'i believes in so the question isn't about individual people.

The comment confuses me

Edit. I read this answer in you're other reply. It still sounds weird just different perspective. I assume people would ideally believe in God if they are Baha'i or they don't need to to be Baha'i?

......

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So keep in mind that even these supposedly ‘foundational’ beliefs are not necessarily held by all Hindus.

Individual beliefs doesn't change the foundational beliefs, it just means Hindus interpret it differently. While one Hindu may believe in X incarnation and another Hindu Y, it's the same god (whether or not someone believes in "that" god doesn't negate whether it [bad terms] exists or not). I wouldn't go by what people individually believe but the foundational principles and god is one of them.

This is consistent with a Baha’i understanding of God. It should be noted that some Hindus are atheists, some are polytheistic and others have different views as to the nature of God.

That doesn't negative Hindus have foundational beliefs regardless how or if they believe in them or not. Just because X Hindu doesn't believe in god and Y Hindu does, they both still acknowledge the idea or reality of this god in Hindu theology regardless how they view it.

This does not necessarily contradict Baha’i beliefs but instead we can’t be certain of the authenticity of any of the Hindu scriptures. So the statement may well be true but that will be a matter which scholars in the future will investigate

It could be. I know Hindus say they don't depend on scriptures as an authority of a whole. I do remember one person who practices here say she/he does look to scriptures for support while most say they don't. It's not really the authenticity of them, in my opinion, but whether they enhance the practice. But the guru is important.

Consistent with a Baha’i perspective. However in many schools of Hinduism karma is closely linked to reincarnation that Baha’is view allegorically not literally.

Baha’is might see this as a useful allegorical narrative but would not belief this literally.

I'm not too sure if reincarnation is true; but, it makes more sense to me than abrahamic beliefs. What is the nature of reincarnationm (the allegory) to bahai view?

In addition to God we can pray to our ancestors and those who have passed to the next world and that prayer and devotion whether in a temple or elsewhere can positively influence our souls. Obligatory prayers have simple rituals associated with their practice. There are no other rituals or sacraments that are a necessary part of our devotions.

This is something new. Hmm. I wouldn't have thought praying to ancestors is in Bahai. Is that an Islamic cultural practice (Muslim, etc) or specific to bahai?

-

Regardless of Hindus individual perspectives, the idea or reality of god is still a foundation in Hindu theology. Same as christians (like with what you said about the catholic church). The Eucharist is still christ regardless if one church knows its nature and the other one things it's a mystery. The theology of creator and Eucharist in catholic churches are present.

I'm sure all abrahamic beliefs believe in a creator. The nature of the creator may vary from person to person; but, that doesn't negate the existence of one.

-

Since bahai believe that these are from the same source, can you define what god is from a bahai point of view to which I can understand the foundation (say god) of these two faiths?

Everything else above is just matter of agreement or disagreement. I'm not Hindu, so I can only defend what I learned from others and most of it is just how I interpret it from them.

Since bahai believe in the same god what is that god? If they can't tell me what it is (their belief in it is irrelevant), I'm sure you can (*from bahai view not theirs)?

(i.e. I know the nature of the Eucharist by the bible and practice. I can explain it regardless that I don't believe in it. I'm sure god is the same especially for indoctrinates who left the faith. They'd have a better grasp on it than I would)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Neither of us is confused but you haven’t understood my point. There is a distinction between what we believe and being an enrolled member of a religious community. For example significant numbers of Christians are atheists but continue to attend church as its cultural. You may attend Hindu temples were there is worship of God or gods. That doesn’t make you a theist. You do that because its tradition. Does that make sense?

Okay. This answers my question. I was just as confused as Aup.

Christians come together because they agree with their central theology. Those who do not doesn't change the theology that people come together as a community to worship the Eucharist jesus christ. If they choose to come to church, that's what they believe or there's no reason to be catholic.

I assume the same thing for bahai or is the belief defined by multiple religions?

The former makes more sense, the latter does not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

I don't get that from the Baha'i. Look at the Baha'i on this thread - all friendly, polite, constructive, etc.. To my knowledge, I've never encountered one anywhere but RF, but all but one have been decent people, some quite bright.

I'm not a Baha'i because I'm an atheist, which apparently isn't a barrier, but also because I don't have a place for religion in my life. My worldview, secular humanism, meets my needs for a rational, empirical, and compassionate approach to life.

If I were to choose an Abrahamic religion, however, it would be Baha'i if it weren't for the punctuation. This post is my annual allotment of "Baha'is," and forget writing out Baháʼu'lláh (that was a copy-and-paste).

 

[Jim]

Okay. This answers my question. I was just as confused as Aup.

Christians come together because they agree with their central theology. Those who do not doesn't change the theology that people come together as a community to worship the Eucharist jesus christ. If they choose to come to church, that's what they believe or there's no reason to be catholic.

I assume the same thing for bahai ...

No. In fact, I don’t think that’s true of any religious community.

Christian churches have creeds, statements of beliefs that their members recite if and when they attend a service. There’s nothing like that in the Baha’i community as it is defined by the Universal House of Justice.

 

[Jim]

Okay. This answers my question. I was just as confused as Aup.

Christians come together because they agree with their central theology. Those who do not doesn't change the theology that people come together as a community to worship the Eucharist jesus christ. If they choose to come to church, that's what they believe or there's no reason to be catholic.

I assume the same thing for bahai or is the belief defined by multiple religions?

The former makes more sense, the latter does not.

As I said, I’ve been in the consultation of spiritual assemblies considering applications for membership. It didn’t matter to me what a person believed about Bahá’u’lláh or about God. What mattered to me was:
- Were they agreeing to follow Bahá’u’lláh?
- Were they aware of the station of Bahá’u’lláh, Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi in the Baha’i community?
- Were they agreeing to obey the institutions?

 

[George-ananda]

Just because someone is enrolled a Baha’i doesn’t mean they believe in God anymore than someone attending the Catholic Church believes in God.

Whoa there. An atheist would have to lie to enroll wouldn’t he? There have always been declarations to be made for enrollment.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

...
IN OTHER WORDS, according to the son of Baha'u'llah, neither the resurrection nor the ascension are to be taken literally. So how is it possible, given those words, for a Baha'i to say, as you did, that the "Resurrection of Jesus, can be understood physically or metaphorically."
.

I probably confused you the way I explained it. My intention was not as you understood. When I say, Resurrection of Jesus can be understood both physically and metaphorically, I am not saying, the Bahais understand it in both ways. I am simply saying, a person, such as a Christian literalist understands it, physically, and another person, such as a Bahai understands it metaphorically. So, both are possible interpretations,but the question is, could it be that all these years, majority of Christian's misunderstood it, and now, Christ has returned in the name of Bahaullah, and has revealed a correct interpretation?
This was my intention. Just pointing out, that, the Bahais believe, Christ has returned, and as part of His mission, He corrected the incorrect teachings of the false teachers. In that case, at least in Bahai view, Bahaullah did not replace Bible teaching about Resurrection, rather He corrected misinterpretations.

[By the way, those statements confirm that Baha'i teaching is intended to replace Christian beliefs, not renew Christian beliefs.]

I agree. It does replace mainstream Christian beliefs, but not necessarily the Bible, unless you can prove, the Authors of Bible meant the Resurrection is to be taken literally. And by the way, this topic has been debated 1000 times, between Bahais and Christians!

As for your confusion over what the "The Authors of the Bible meant by "the resurrection and ascension of Jesus", to wit: "The Authors of Bible did not say, they meant a physical resurrection."
I would welcome specific citations and/or quotations supporting your claim.

Well, when there is no verse in Bible saying the Resurrection is to be taken literally physical, then it opens the possibility, that They could have meant it metaphorically, right? But to debate about resurrection, should be in another thread I prefer.

As for your final question, did Christians, in the Bible, replace or correct the Covenant between God and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and between God and Israel at Sinai?
Any human, Christian or otherwise, who believes that God's covenant with Israel can be abrogated or nullified or replaced by anyone but God Himself is in error.

I was just simply pointing out, just as Christians believe the new testament, corrects some of the misinterpretations of Jews, likewise Bahais believe, their scriptures correct misinterpretations of the new testament.
And when after centuries after Moses, the Jews on those days had forgotten the Spirit of Religion, and instead were focused more on works, then Christ came, and renewed the spiritual teachings of Religion, is this not renewal? Bahai faith likewise renewed the spiritual teachings which are essential part of the Religion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As I said, I’ve been in the consultation of spiritual assemblies considering applications for membership. It didn’t matter to me what a person believed about Bahá’u’lláh or about God. What mattered to me was:
- Were they agreeing to follow Bahá’u’lláh?
- Were they aware of the station of Bahá’u’lláh, Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi in the Baha’i community?
- Were they agreeing to obey the institutions?

Did you mean to reply to another person?

All of these requirements need to have god as the foundation just as the god Bahaullah believed in. If there is no belief in god, than the questions they agree with is irrelevant. It makes it seem bahai community is not a religion in itself. If believe in god isn't necessary, then how is it an abrahamic religion (going by the comment I made to Adrian)?

 

[Terry Sampson]

the question is, could it be that all these years, majority of Christian's misunderstood it,

If, all these years, a majority of Christians have believed in the literal resurrection of Jesus, then the majority of Christians have NOT misunderstood it. If and when the majority of Christians believe that Jesus' resurrection was non-literal, that majority will have misunderstood it, ... regardless what they do about it.

No matter how hard you or anyone else tries to avoid it or slip around it, Paul made the matter as clear as anyone can make it:

• 1 Corinthians 15:12-18.
  • 12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
  • 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
  • 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
  • 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
  • 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
  • 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
  • 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
  • 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

could it be that ... now, Christ has returned in the name of Bahaullah, and has revealed a correct interpretation?

No.

This was my intention. Just pointing out, that, the Bahais believe, Christ has returned, and as part of His mission, He corrected the incorrect teachings of the false teachers. In that case, at least in Bahai view,

Thanks for confirming that my understanding of the Baha'i position was and is correct.

[Baha'i] does replace mainstream Christian beliefs, ...

Thanks for confirming that my understanding of the Baha'i position was and is correct.

... but not necessarily the Bible, unless you can prove, the Authors of Bible meant the Resurrection is to be taken literally.

I'm not interested in even trying to persuade you.

just as Christians believe the new testament, corrects some of the misinterpretations of Jews, likewise Bahais believe, their scriptures correct misinterpretations of the new testament.

Israel has its covenant with the Father and Christians have their covenant with the Father, offered to all who follow Jesus. Baha'i scriptures neither correct nor amend either covenant.

 

[CG Didymus]

Well, when there is no verse in Bible saying the Resurrection is to be taken literally physical, then it opens the possibility, that They could have meant it metaphorically, right?

Are the gospels telling us about the life of Jesus? Are we supposed to trust the things they said about Jesus? The Baha'i answer has to be "no". Even though the risen Jesus was supposedly seen by hundreds of people plus the disciples and one of them even touched him. But I'm fine with a metaphorical God bringing his metaphorical Son back to life. But, if we are going to believe that, I prefer calling it myth. How about Baha'is? Are you good calling the resurrection story myth?