How are these Great Beings explained?

Dawnofhope · Aug 14, 2017

CG Didymus said:
Who is the "they" that didn't believe the resurrection happened?

Those that don't believe in the physical resurrection.

Ingledsva · Aug 14, 2017

adrian009 said:
If you say so. I've been a Baha'i 27 years, and a husband 17 years so I must be missing something.

Let's have another go at putting the above verse it in context. You have misunderstood it.

748. Keys to Strengthening of Family
"The relationship between husband and wife must be viewed in the context of the Bahá’í ideal of family life. Bahá’u’lláh came to bring unity to the world, and a fundamental unity is that of the family. Therefore, one must believe that the Faith is intended to strengthen the family, not weaken it, and one of the keys to the strengthening of unity is loving consultation. The atmosphere within a Bahá’í family as within the community as a whole should express 'the keynote of the Cause of God' which, the beloved Guardian has stated, 'is not dictatorial authority but humble fellowship, not arbitrary power, but the spirit of frank and loving consultation.'"
(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of New Zealand, December 28, 1980)

749. Honour and Privilege Ordained for Women: Obedience to Husbands
"It is in this context of mutual and complementary duties and responsibilities that one should read the Tablet in which ‘Abdu’l-Bahá gives the following exhortation:

'O Handmaids of the Self-Sustaining Lord! Exert your efforts so that you may attain the honour and privilege ordained for women. Undoubtedly the greatest glory of women is servitude at His Threshold and submissiveness at His door; it is the possession of a vigilant heart, and praise of the incomparable God; it is heartfelt love towards other handmaids and spotless chastity; it is obedience to and consideration for their husbands and the education and care of their children; and it is tranquillity, and dignity, perseverance in the remembrance of the Lord, and the utmost enkindlement and attraction.' "
(Ibid.)

750. Domination by Husband or Wife not Right
"This exhortation to the utmost degree of spirituality and self-abnegation should not be read as a legal definition giving the husband absolute authority over his wife, for, in a letter written to an individual believer on 22th July 1943, the beloved Guardian's secretary wrote on his behalf:

'The Guardian, in his remarks…about parents and children, wives and husbands' relations in America meant that there is a tendency in that country for children to be too independent of the wishes of their parents and lacking in the respect due to them. Also wives, in some cases, have a tendency to exert an unjust degree of domination over their husbands which, of course, is not right, anymore than that the husband should unjustly dominate his wife.' "
(Ibid.)

751. Time When Wife Should Defer to Husband and Time When Husband Should Defer to Wife
"In any group, however loving the consultation, there are nevertheless points on which, from time to time, agreement cannot be reached. In a Spiritual Assembly this dilemma is resolved by a majority vote. There can, however, be no majority where only two parties are involved, as in the case of a husband and wife. There are, therefore, times when a wife should defer to her husband, and times when a husband should defer to his wife, but neither should ever unjustly dominate the other. In short, the relationship between husband and wife should be as held forth in the prayer revealed by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá which is often read at Bahá’í weddings: 'Verily they are married in obedience to Thy command. Cause them to become the signs of harmony and unity until the end of time.*' "
(Ibid.)
*(Bahá’í Prayers, p. 107, 1982 ed.)

752. In Tablet of the World Women and Men Envisaged as Breadwinners
"In the Tablet of the World, Bahá’u’lláh Himself has envisaged that women as well as men would be breadwinners in stating:

'Everyone, whether man or woman, should hand over to a trusted person a portion of what he or she earneth through trade, agriculture or other occupation, for the training and education of children, to be spent for this purpose with the knowledge of the Trustees of the House of Justice.'"
("Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh revealed after the Kitab-i-Aqdas", p. 90)
"A very important element in the attainment of such equality is Bahá’u’lláh's provision that boys and girls must follow essentially the same curriculum in schools."
(Ibid.)

753. Love Between Husband and Wife
"The friends of God must so live and conduct themselves and evince such excellence of character and conduct, as to make others astonished. The love between husband and wife should not be purely physical, nay rather it must be spiritual and heavenly. These two souls should be considered as one soul. How difficult it would be to divide a single soul! Nay, great would be the difficulty!

"In short, the foundation of the Kingdom of God is based upon harmony and love, oneness, relationship and union, not upon differences, especially between husband and wife."
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá: Family Life, A Compilation of the Universal House of Justice)

And none of this lovey-dovey stuff negates the actual written words of YOUR prophet. You are supposed to be following HIS words from God. Yes?

adrian009 said:
No I didn't miss the verses about two wives. I provided the writings that informs you why this is no longer applicable anywhere.

No you didn't show that.

adrian009 said:
I don't know why you are quoting from the Quran. Baha'is are not Muslims, and what Muhammad revealed was 1,400 years ago when the conditions of society were very different from what they are today.

I was quoting an article written by a Baha'i, which said that is the probable source. You know very well it is not fully divorced from Islamic teachings. The updated version.

adrian009 said:
This is not an authorised translation of the Baha'i writings.

“Concerning bigamy, this has been promulgated, and no one must abrogate it. ‘Abdu’l-Baha has not abrogated this law. These are false accusations and lies (spread by) the friends. What I have said is that He has made bigamy bound on a precondition. As long as someone does not attain certitude regarding the capability to practice justice and his heart is not at rest that he can practice justice, he should not be intent upon a second marriage. But if he should be sure and attain certitude that he would practice justice on all levels (and conditions), then a second marriage is lawful. Just as has been the case in the Holy Land: the Baha’i friends wished to marry a second wife, accepting this precondition, and this servant [Abdu’l-Baha] never abstained (from giving permission), but insisted that justice should be considered, and justice actually means here self-restraint; but they said, that they will practice justice and wished to marry a second wife. Such false accusations [charges that Abdu’l-Baha prohibited bigamy] are the slanderous whisperings of those who wish to spread doubts and to what degree they already succeed in making matters ambiguous! (Our) purpose was to state that bigamy without justice is not lawful and that justice is very difficult (to achieve).”
[Amr wa Khalq, Volume 4, p. 174]

adrian009 said:
Baha'i men and women are free to write their wills as they see fit.

Again - in most modern countries that rule of your religion can't be enforced. However - that does not change what your Prophet and religion said.

*

Dawnofhope · Aug 14, 2017

CG Didymus said:
"The soul came into being at conception"?

According a Baha'i worldview....Yes.

CG Didymus said:
From that point on it is eternal?

Yes.

CG Didymus said:
Does this mean that God is still creating new souls everyday?

Yes.

CG Didymus said:
But only for humans?

Yes.

CG Didymus said:
Animals were just created to live and die and be gone forever?

Yes.

CG Didymus said:
"Great Teachers were real, each has a book as a record of their teachings.."?

No. That is true for Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the Babi Faith, and the Baha'i Faith. It is probably true for Krishna and Buddha. I don't know enough about Zoroastrianism to comment. There are other Manifestations whose name and teachings have been lost in the mists of time, or we simply don't know enough to answer this question.

CG Didymus said:
Jesus didn't write a book and the book written about him isn't telling us the true story... according to the Baha'i Faith.

There are four gospels as you know. You believe the stories are not true. I believe they are part literal, part symbolic/allegorical.

CG Didymus said:
Did Moses write the Bible?

No.

CG Didymus said:
Did he write Genesis?

No. This was most likely written centuries after Moses passed away. It is thought to be based on Moses teachings but we don't know for sure bow much of it was.

CG Didymus said:
Then who and why did the Ishmael and Isaac switch happen?

We don't know. Perhaps it became changed through the centuries of being passed down through oral traditions. There are in all likelihood a variety of possible causes.

CG Didymus said:
Did Adam, Noah or Abraham write books?

We don't know.

CG Didymus said:
There's a site that said there is a contradiction between what Abdu'l Baha said versus Shoghi Effendi concerning Confucius. It said:

"The infallible Center of the Covenant (Abdu’l Baha) said that Confucius was a Manifestation (Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.346), which is the position held today.

The infallible Guardian (Shoghi Effendi) states, "Confucius was not a Prophet (Manifestation)" (Lights of Guidance, p.349). He's right, he was a philosopher."

Can you explain this?

This is a Christian site called contradictions in the Baha'i Faith. It s purpose is to discredit the Baha'i Faith. On p346 Abdu'l-Baha does not refer to Confucius as a Manifestation of God, despite the Christians claiming he does. Confucius is not considered a Manifestation of God by the Baha'is, but certainly a soul according to Abdu'l-Baha that was 'the cause of illumination in the world of humanity.'

CG Didymus said:
Thanks.

You're welcome.

TransmutingSoul · Aug 14, 2017

Ingledsva said:
Spoken like a male - whom can be in those governing bodies.

Deflection from lack of equality by women not being allowed, - to it's ambition which is not a virtue.

I guess all those men in the governing body have no virtue.*

You see it as you choose to.

Have a great life and may all you wish for be yours.

Regards Tony

Dawnofhope · Aug 14, 2017

Ingledsva said:
And none of this lovey-dovey stuff negates the actual written words of YOUR prophet. You are supposed to be following HIS words from God. Yes?

Like the independent investigation of truth for example?

"Furthermore, know ye that God has created in man the power of reason, whereby man is enabled to investigate reality. God has not intended man to imitate blindly his fathers and ancestors. He has endowed him with mind, or the faculty of reasoning, by the exercise of which he is to investigate and discover the truth, and that which he finds real and true he must accept."
`Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 291

Ingledsva said:
No you didn't show that.

Yes I did. Here is the text with the link I sent:

While the text of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas appears to permit bigamy, Bahá’u’lláh counsels that tranquillity and contentment derive from monogamy. In another Tablet, He underlines the importance of the individual’s acting in such a way as to “bring comfort to himself and to his partner”. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the authorized Interpreter of the Bahá’í Writings, states that in the text of the Aqdas monogamy is in effect enjoined. He elaborates this theme in a number of Tablets, including the following:

Know thou that polygamy is not permitted under the law of God, for contentment with one wife hath been clearly stipulated. Taking a second wife is made dependent upon equity and justice being upheld between the two wives, under all conditions. However, observance of justice and equity towards two wives is utterly impossible. The fact that bigamy has been made dependent upon an impossible condition is clear proof of its absolute prohibition. Therefore it is not permissible for a man to have more than one wife.

Polygamy is a very ancient practice among the majority of humanity. The introduction of monogamy has been only gradually accomplished by the Manifestations of God. Jesus, for example, did not prohibit polygamy, but abolished divorce except in the case of fornication; Muḥammad limited the number of wives to four, but making plurality of wives contingent on justice, and reintroducing permission for divorce; Bahá’u’lláh, Who was revealing His Teachings in the milieu of a Muslim society, introduced the question of monogamy gradually in accordance with the principles of wisdom and the progressive unfoldment of His purpose. The fact that He left His followers with an infallible Interpreter of His Writings enabled Him to outwardly permit two wives in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas but uphold a condition that enabled ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to elucidate later that the intention of the law was to enforce monogamy.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 205-206

No polygamy in the Baha'i faith, only monogamy.

Ingledsva said:
I was quoting an article written by a Baha'i, which said that is the probable source. You know very well it is not fully divorced from Islamic teachings. The updated version.

So who is this Baha'i and what is the link?

The Baha'i Faith is an independent religion from Islam, not a sect.

Bahá'í Reference Library - God Passes By, Pages 364-375

Ingledsva said:
[Amr wa Khalq, Volume 4, p. 174]

What is the Amr wa Khalq and how does it form part of the authoritative Baha'i writings?

Ingledsva said:
Again - in most modern countries that rule of your religion can't be enforced. However - that does not change what your Prophet and religion said.

As I said, Baha'is are free to determine their own will. There is no Baha'i law that states otherwise.

The Bahá’í laws of inheritance apply only in case of intestacy, that is, when the individual dies without leaving a will. In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (# 109), Bahá’u’lláh instructs every believer to write a will. He elsewhere clearly states that the individual has full jurisdiction over his property and is free to determine the manner in which his or her estate is to be divided and to designate, in the will, those, whether Bahá’í or non-Bahá’í, who should inherit.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 182-184

Dawnofhope · Aug 14, 2017

CG Didymus said:
I said: "So I don't see why a reporter would tell us the events of the day in symbolic poetry?"
You said: "Because he wishes to convey spiritual truths, not historical facts."
So you tell me what is historical facts in Luke's Gospel and in Acts. He's reporting how Jesus did things, went places and said things. Same thing in Acts, he tells what happened to the apostles and then the story of Paul. What really happened and what is symbolic?

I thought it was all clear? What specific part are you confused about?

Unveiled Artist · Aug 14, 2017

CG Didymus said:
I already asked this in another post to someone, maybe one of the Baha'is, I don't remember, but why in God's name would some scribe change all these verses and the ones about Isaac? And why would his changes get copied by other scribes? And why would they do this hundreds of years before Islam ever got invented? Too strange.

Did Bahai give a purpose for changing Isaac to Ishmael and the importance of this change?

I mean, unless Bahai has a different god who gave different instructions he gave to Abram that they interpret in the bible, I don't see how the god of abraham can say Isaac but then turn around and really mean Ishmael. Unless god has two faces or something.

Dawnofhope · Aug 14, 2017

CG Didymus said:
That's the thing, how do you keep it a peaceful and respectful talk?

Avoid discussing religion too much and enjoy each others company.

Dawnofhope · Aug 14, 2017

Carlita said:
I've said, though, if you're talking about superman, no he did not rise. The alternative meanings I've mentioned is union with christ through Mass via the life-scripture and prayer, death-confession, and resurrection-communion and prayer.

I'm good with all that.

Carlita said:
I don't see it symbolically. Real people actually go through the act of the literal passion of christ.

How can you see god literally but a lot of scripture symbolically?

I wonder if we just use language differently. For me, if its not literal, then its symbolic but that doesn't negate the experience being real.

Carlita said:
Can you provide other alternatives to believing the literal resurrection of christ? If it's only symbolic (or spiritual, if you like), why wouldn't god be the same? Can you prove god exists by science (not testimony) or is that an experience just the same as how I described the resurrection?

We can disprove the resurrection, whereas we can't with God.

The most useful proof of God is that power His teachings have to transform the hearts of those who love Him and try to live the life. In that manner we all have hope and a promise of a better life.

Dawnofhope · Aug 14, 2017

Carlita said:
If you guys believe that all scripture of all revealed religions are god breathed, why would Bahaullah need to correct them?

It would be more correct to say that Baha'u'llah clarifies those teachings. Why? Because the message becomes distorted and confused with the passing of time. Some of the teachings are for a particular people at a particular era and are no longer relevant. The age we live in has particular challenges that were not addressed by previous Manifestations or teachers.

Carlita said:
If man corrupted other scriptures but kept Bahaullah's scriptures intact, isnt that defeating the idea that all scriptures cannot be changed by man because they are inspired by god?

Often it is not so much that the scripture is corrupted but the essence of their teachings so profoundly misunderstood so as to make them ineffective.

Carlita said:
If you call all scripture inspired by god, why would you guys need to correct god's inspired bible but not Bahaullah's inspired words even though both are written by inspired men?

Baha'u'llah's words are clear and relevant at this time. The previous religious teachings appear to lack this.

Carlita said:
How did man corrupted the bible if you use it as an inspired word; and, why use the bible, if it was indeed corrupted?

By adding to it, ignoring some of it, and mistranslating some of it (particularly the symbolic verses).

Carlita said:
Oh, that's right, also, why do you say we-bahai rather than we-humanity? (Not speaking for humanity but because humanity has one core, speaking as part of humanity)

Most of humanity do not share all the Baha'i beliefs, but nearly all Baha'is share Baha'i beliefs.

Hope that helps. I would be very interests in the thoughts of my RF Baha'i friends

InvestigateTruth · Aug 14, 2017

CG Didymus said:
Wrong. James 2:21 NIV "Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?"

Hebrews 11:17 NIV "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac on the altar. He who had received the promises was ready to offer his one and only son.."

So now you have an alleged mistake being carried over into the NT. Somebody's got some explaining to do.

No, it is in the Jewish Bible:

genesis 22:2
Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love--Isaac--and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you."

The Christian Bible referenced it only. The belief is Jewish.

InvestigateTruth · Aug 14, 2017

adrian009 said:
I would be very interests in the thoughts of my RF Baha'i friends

Well explained.

InvestigateTruth · Aug 14, 2017

CG Didymus said:
Where he explained that the book of Genesis is wrong? And has been tampered with?

I read those Tablets a while ago, so I don't remember all its details. Currently i am very busy. Maybe if you have sometime, you can find them, and explain it.

DavidFirth · Aug 14, 2017

CG Didymus said:
I've only gotten to this post now, so I'm a few pages behind. But this is worth commenting on now. I wonder who was able to take the body and bury it in a secret place? Since the Jews and the Romans didn't know where it is, how did Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi know it general location? How did they even know it happened? Why would all the Christian spread the story that Christ had risen? Why wouldn't the Baha'is call the resurrection a hoax instead of saying it's true, but only in a symbolic way?

Both the Jews and Romans knew exactly where the body of Jesus WAS. They can show you the location of the tomb He was buried in today.

Vinayaka · Aug 14, 2017

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
There is no head or hirachy in the Baha'i Faith.

So what exactly then, is the House of Justice? Why have it at all?

Vinayaka · Aug 14, 2017

adrian009 said:
If you say so. I've been a Baha'i 27 years, and a husband 17 years so I must be missing something.

I think what you're missing is that you personally have some common sense, more intelligence, thrown into life, and are willing, in many cases to 'alter' the dictates of your faith a bit, whilst many others probably aren't up to that. Your personal experience may well not be the experience of others. With the number of ex-Baha'i' around, I guess that's rather obvious though.

Unveiled Artist · Aug 14, 2017

adrian009 said:
I'm good with all that.

I wonder if we just use language differently. For me, if its not literal, then its symbolic but that doesn't negate the experience being real.

We can disprove the resurrection, whereas we can't with God.

The most useful proof of God is that power His teachings have to transform the hearts of those who love Him and try to live the life. In that manner we all have hope and a promise of a better life.

The resurrection is just as poweful as the experience of god. How do you separate the two?

Vinayaka · Aug 14, 2017

adrian009 said:
Some of the teachings are for a particular people at a particular era and are no longer relevant. The age we live in has particular challenges that were not addressed by previous Manifestations or teachers.

And this statement is still true. Some of the teachings of your prophet (150 years back) are indeed no longer relevant, (stance on homosexuality for sure) and yet the Governing Body, as far as I know, has always interpreted all the teachings to still be totally relevant, and refuse to overturn any of them based on the above statement. I find that rather odd. But again that's the very nature of infallible prophet religions.

Of course, the other faiths whom you consider some teachings irrelevant often do consider them totally relevant.

loverofhumanity · Aug 14, 2017

CG Didymus said:
First, can you post the quote where Baha'u'llah confirms this thing about Isaac and Ishmael.

Second, why was Baha'u'llah impersonating God? Was Baha'u'llah the one who sent the plagues to the Egyptians? Did he order the killing of all the people at Jericho? Did he flood the whole world and kill everybody except Noah and his family? Does Baha'u'llah know an angel named Moroni, or was that Baha'u'llah again talking to Joseph Smith?

Baha'u'llah is not God but His Spokes Person. As God's Representative and has knowledge of all that has been.

Here's the quote you requested.

“That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men.”

“Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.”

We only know what He has commented on. But Baha'u'llah is not God. He only speaks for God. Two entirely different things.

loverofhumanity · Aug 14, 2017

CG Didymus said:
If you return as a Muslim in Afghanistan or a son of a drug lord in Colombia would that be like returning to "kindergarten"? If you were born a poor black woman in Georgia 200 years ago or the son of a rich plantation owner that owned that woman, or, if you had the chance to live both those lives, would it be like kindergarten all over again?

It would be the same because I would only be able to learn what this world and a physical body is capable of teaching me whereas in other worlds of God in different settings I would learn things I could never learn here.

How are these Great Beings explained?

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Veteran Member

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Veteran Member

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

devotee

devotee

Veteran Member

devotee

We are all the leaves of one tree

We are all the leaves of one tree