How are these Great Beings explained?

my hands are trembling as i write this coz i see somethign drastic..so ..short version of what im saying is.. bottom line.. if you want to rule govern world into peace..forget all religion start only with islam - reform it to a shiney face ..and then other would follow suit. if not then you are a power hungry reza aslan ottoman Scientology bot/ spy.

CG Didymus said:

Read the Baha'i explanation of the "social laws" and "spiritual" unchangeable laws brought to the people they call "manifestations". Like I said, this question is for the Baha'is. They know what I'm talking about and want them to give me an answer.

Click to expand...

Well, there are probs with that then, because, imo, not one single law of the 613 lawss of Moses was spiritual. Not one. They were all intended to cohese, strengthen, keep healthy and make successful the Israelites. I suppose it might be argued that the sacrificial laws were in some way spiritual, but I should reply that they were mostly in place to provide huge and happy incomes for the most privileged Levites, the Priesthood, and very good livings for the rest of the Levite clan. So the spiritual bit could fall flat right there.
Just you wait...... I'll get bashed by @Tumah now.

As for you... Colossians 3:22 2 Timothy 2:24 Luke 3:14 Romans 13:1 Galatians 5:26? Only one is a quote from Jesus and in Luke 3:14 says not to take money by force and not to accuse falsely? Those two sound like part of the 10 commandments.... nothing new. On the others, too bad, but Paul is not Jesus. You might think he was inspired, and thanks for your interest in the questions, but I want Baha'is to tell me what specific new social laws Jesus brought.

Click to expand...

I snatched a bunch at random, as you can see. There's loads of 'em. I do like the 'Slaves obey your masters' ones like Ephesians 6:5. I showed that one, together with the Colossians quote above, to the Missus. She made me paint the brickwork all round the house.

Now..... you mention that 'Jesus never said that'. I agree with you, but sadly most Christians don't. Paul, Cephas and all the apostles and Prophets whose writings made it in to the New Testament are God's Ordained Messengers who wrote God's Divine Words and therefore Jesus actually was speaking through them. Some Christians even mention Paul's mid-term dispensation or something, where he actually took over from Jesus. And so (imo) most of the upsetting and unhelpful dogma of most Churches is.... Paul's.

And there is a Bahai problem not wholly dissimilar to that, in that Bahauallah's writings have been adjusted here and there by one of his sons Abdul-Baha and his great-grandson (?) Shogi Effendi. It could be that those names actually caused, made or intitiated new laws. Further to that, the head governing body, the UHJ can enact or repeal laws as it sees fit to do so, and because it is divinely guided cannot make a mistake, even if it decides that up is down, I think that Bahauallah wrote, or possibly his son.

And so, there's that term again........ divine communication.

CG Didymus said:

I became a vegetarian in 1969. In the 70's Baha'is told me that in the future people will be vegetarians. So from 1860 to 1970 sounds like the future. So how much responsibility are on the Baha'is to lead the way?

Click to expand...

Zero, apparently. 'In the future' is always in the future. It's a nonsensical approach to not changing personal behavior. Whenever this came up in my Hindu sampradaya, my Guru would proclaim, "Now is a good time to start!"

Vinayaka said:

That's what proselytizing is. The people at my door say they have a gift to offer me. With the advent of the internet, and the accessibility to it by most people, anybody searching for a new religion, or answers to questions their own faith has failed to answer, has a real gift .. free accessible information. They can come to forums like this one and ask questions, or they can just browse to their heart's content. It is information overload now. Now, more that ever, there simply is no need to offer up new ideas to anyone. The entire idea is beyond the scope of most Hindus, with a couple of exceptions. It's simply saying that you have something better than everyone else.

The general Hindu POV is not to say anything until asked, and it's definitely my POV. On threads like this it's a bit different. In comparative stuff, you almost have to say something from your faith's POV. Many days ago I answered the OP's question to the best of my ability, for example. It was a question, after all, and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that he did want POVs.

The entire thread was a bit suspect from the beginning though, as it seemed the only acceptable answers were to follow the Baha'i' POV. This, of course, begs the question ... was the question legitimate, or was it an excuse to get somebody, anybody talking about the Baha'i' faith a whole lot?

Click to expand...

The thread was to make the point that These unique Personages are the only Ones capable of regenerating the world spiritually.

loverofhumanity said:

The thread was to make the point that These unique Personages are the only Ones capable of regenerating the world spiritually.

Click to expand...

In other words, it was a reason to proselytize your faith. I didn't understand the question originally. I misunderstood, thinking that you actually wanted debate, so sorry for that misunderstanding, (Logical reasoning though, as you did put it in the debate section.) LH. So I shall withdraw from this thread, and I apologize for all the hassle I've caused you, and your Baha'i' brothers. Best wishes on becoming content.

CG Didymus said:

Yes, God is a lawgiver and prescribed punishments for those that break his laws... like stoning. Did his remedy work? No.

Someone said that a Baha'i law said to burn an arsonist. But what about adulterers and fornicators and.... those that practice homosexual behavior? What is the punishment recommended by God in the Baha'i Era? But, since stoning didn't stop it, what makes whatever Baha'u'llah implements be different?

Click to expand...

In each age laws were given according to the capacity of the people. In an open desert without jails, courts or police the punishment had to be severe as possible to deter repeat offending. Today however, we have the facilities to re educate and train these people and correct their behaviour but that doesn't always work either.

With regards to the arsonist. Firstly it's optional as life imprisonment is permitted instead and burning an empty house or a schoolroom full of children are entirely different things.

There is no punishment for homosexuality. It is just forbidden but so is blatant immorality of all kinds not just homosexuality. The Baha'i laws view heterosexual immorality in the same light.

Vinayaka said:

In other words, it was a reason to proselytize your faith. I didn't understand the question originally. I misunderstood, thinking that you actually wanted debate, so sorry for that misunderstanding, (Logical reasoning though, as you did put it in the debate section.) LH. So I shall withdraw from this thread, and I apologize for all the hassle I've caused you, and your Baha'i' brothers. Best wishes on becoming content.

Click to expand...

Of course it's up for debate because you and most of the world reject it. I mentioned all the Manifestations not just Baha'u'llah.

oldbadger said:

Well, there are probs with that then, because, imo, not one single law of the 613 lawss of Moses was spiritual. Not one.

Click to expand...

What does "spiritual" mean in this context?

They were all intended to cohese, strengthen, keep healthy and make successful the Israelites.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like for instance that law about not eating fruit from a fruit tree for the first three years its planted. Or the one about when an entire agrarian society leaves the ground fallow for an entire year. Or not lighting a fire in your home on the Sabbath. A nation that freezes together on the Sabbath, stays together!

I suppose it might be argued that the sacrificial laws were in some way spiritual, but I should reply that they were mostly in place to provide huge and happy incomes for the most privileged Levites, the Priesthood, and very good livings for the rest of the Levite clan. So the spiritual bit could fall flat right there.

Click to expand...

I don't think the sacrifices really helped the priests out that much. Any sacrifice that a priest could eat from, had to be eaten by either the following dawn or in some cases sunset of the following day and only within the Temple. That's beside the fact that the priests were split into 24 groups rotating on a weekly basis, so that you only got whatever showed up your week and had to split it with all the other priests.

The Levites didn't get a hair off the sacrifices.

Maybe you're thinking of the other priestly and levite gifts, like heave offerings (~2.1% of total harvest for priests) and tithes (9.8% of total harvest for Levite) from grain, oil and wine and some animal parts (right forleg, lower jaw with tongue and cheek and abomasum).

Just you wait...... I'll get bashed by @Tumah now.

Click to expand...

Am I that transparent!?!

Vinayaka said:

So if a person is non-religious, or doesn't claim a religion, they're out? The no-religion crowd, or 'none' is the fastest growing 'religious' group on the planet. I realise that in Baha'u'llah's day there was no such thing, or he hadn't heard of it, but how can today's Baha'i's adapt to this fact, when they're limited to what the prophet said? How have you adapted, IT?

Click to expand...

No, Bahaullah never stated that if a person does not have religion or does not believe in God, the Bahais should not socialize with him.
You would need to know the cultural and religious context of the people who Bahaullah was sent to: In Previous Religions prior to Bahaullah's revelations, it was required that the believers are not to socialize with the followers of other religions who did not follow the newer Religion.
For example, in Quran, it is said that Muslims are not to take Christians as friends. Similar religious laws existed in Revelations before Islam.
Bahaullah changed this law. He abrogated it, saying 'people can socialize with the followers of all religions'. At the time, and before Bahaullah, there were many who did not believe in God, and did not have any religion. This idea of 'disbelief in God' is nothing new. The Bahai Laws does not state that just because a person does not believe in God, we are to abandon him. That is why Bahais are free to make friends with all, as long as they are not wicked.

CG Didymus said:

But teaching the Baha'i interpretations of the other religions does create conflicts. They say the Baha'is are wrong, and then what? What does the Baha'i say to bring peace and understanding to the diverse beliefs of the different religions?

Click to expand...

I do not think teaching the Bahai interpretation would create conflicts. Insisting and arguing will create conflicts. That is why Bahaullah said, only if they like to hear it, tell them.

InvestigateTruth said:

In Previous Religions prior to Bahaullah's revelations, it was required that the believers are not to socialize with the followers of other religions who did not follow the newer Religion.

Click to expand...

Not true for Hinduism, never has been true.

loverofhumanity said:

Of course it's up for debate because you and most of the world reject it. I mentioned all the Manifestations not just Baha'u'llah.

Click to expand...

Here's the definition of debate:

de·bate
dəˈbāt/
noun
noun: debate; plural noun: debates

1. 1.
   a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
   synonyms: discussion, discourse, parley, dialogue; More
   argument, counterargument, dispute, wrangle, war of words;
   argumentation, disputation, dissension, disagreement, contention, conflict;
   negotiations, talks;
   informalconfab, powwow
   "a debate on the reforms"
   • an argument about a particular subject, especially one in which many people are involved.
     "the national debate on abortion"

verb
verb: debate; 3rd person present: debates; past tense: debated; past participle: debated; gerund or present participle: debating

1. 1.
   argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.
   "the board debated his proposal"
   synonyms: discuss, talk over/through, talk about, thrash out, hash out, argue, dispute; More
   informalkick around, bat around
   "they will debate the future of rail transport"
   • consider a possible course of action in one's mind before reaching a decision.
     "he debated whether he should leave the matter alone or speak to her"
     synonyms: consider, think over/about, chew over, mull over, ponder, revolve, deliberate, contemplate, muse, meditate;
     formalcogitate
     "he debated whether to call her"

I honestly don't believ some of the folks here understand what it is.

InvestigateTruth said:

I do not think teaching the Bahai interpretation would create conflicts. Insisting and arguing will create conflicts. That is why Bahaullah said, only if they like to hear it, tell them.

Click to expand...

So as long as everyone just agrees with you, there is no problem?

I think it's just wishful thinking to insult another religion, or misinterpret it to suit your needs, and then expect no response. For example:
"You don't understand your own faith. We Baha'i's understand it better than you do."
"I'm sorry, and yes, you're absolutely correct. When is your next meeting?"

Vinayaka said:

So as long as everyone just agrees with you, there is no problem?

I think it's just wishful thinking to insult another religion, or misinterpret it to suit your needs, and then expect no response. For example:
"You don't understand your own faith. We Baha'i's understand it better than you do."
"I'm sorry, and yes, you're absolutely correct. When is your next meeting?"

Click to expand...

Vinayaka, No it is not any Baha'i that understands, it is Baha'u'llah.

It is what Baha'u'llah has said, which is what is offered, but us being faliable, we often offer it in the wrong way.

It was offered early in the posts that to Understand the Great Beings a person has to look to them and them only, it must be an indivudual search for Truth.

They ine and all offer Themsleves, their Lives and only then, their Word from God as proof of what they say.

I would not listen to any other person for understanding, Look to the Messengers Themsleves.

May you always be well and happy. Regards Tony

loverofhumanity said:

There is no punishment for homosexuality. It is just forbidden but so is blatant immorality of all kinds not just homosexuality. The Baha'i laws view heterosexual immorality in the same light

Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not forbidden in my religion.

Saint Frankenstein said:

Homosexuality is not forbidden in my religion.

Click to expand...

Nor in mine.

As for punishment, according to a few non-Baha'i' sites about Baha'i', homosexuals, if they persist, are often asked to leave the organisation, or banished. (It's hard to get such stuff from Baha'i' sites themselves, as they often make no statement at all, or stay purposely vague,) In terms of cruel and unusual punishments, this is rather kind. Certainly much better than the death penalty.

Still, banishment must be rough on friends and family.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Vinayaka, No it is not any Baha'i that understands, it is Baha'u'llah.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand, and it is Baha'u'llah non-Baha'i's like me disagree with. In a world where freedom of religion is the norm, we have that right. Again. please don't attach disagreement to hate. Disagreeing with somebody's take on reality isn't hate. It's just disagreement.

Coming from such different paradigms as we do, sometimes that is hard to see. The 'us versus them' mentality runs rampant in Abrahamic faiths. It's hard to rid oneself of that.

From the dharmic POV, we can still have harmony and respect about the non-religious things in life.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Vinayaka, No it is not any Baha'i that understands, it is Baha'u'llah.

It is what Baha'u'llah has said, which is what is offered, but us being faliable, we often offer it in the wrong way.

It was offered early in the posts that to Understand the Great Beings a person has to look to them and them only, it must be an indivudual search for Truth.

They ine and all offer Themsleves, their Lives and only then, their Word from God as proof of what they say.

I would not listen to any other person for understanding, Look to the Messengers Themsleves.

May you always be well and happy. Regards Tony

Click to expand...

Part of the communication problem here, as you know, is your willing persistence to state your belief as fact.

loverofhumanity said:

Of course it's up for debate because you and most of the world reject it. I mentioned all the Manifestations not just Baha'u'llah.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know, and I don't believe in any of them. That's a major reason why I reject it.

Vinayaka said:

Yes, I understand, and it is Baha'u'llah non-Baha'i's like me disagree with. In a world where freedom of religion is the norm, we have that right. Again. please don't attach disagreement to hate. Disagreeing with somebody's take on reality isn't hate. It's just disagreement.

Coming from such different paradigms as we do, sometimes that is hard to see. The 'us versus them' mentality runs rampant in Abrahamic faiths. It's hard to rid oneself of that.

From the dharmic POV, we can still have harmony and respect about the non-religious things in life.

Click to expand...

No worries, I know I will not see disagreement as hate.

You have always shown you are willing to be friendly in your dissagrement.

Regards Tony