• 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!

How are these Great Beings explained?

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
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.

It is your BELIEF that he speaks for God.

A JEWISH story - written down by JEWS - about a specific JEW - tells us the JEWISH son being sacrificed was ISAAC.

The Quran does not actually give a name in this story. So it is just an Islamic myth, that it is Ishmael, - which is not in the Quran, - which is being pushed by Baha'u'llah, - supposedly from God, - but in reality is a myth from the region which is the original source of the Baha'i religion.

There are no writings what so ever to support the Ishmael idea, - other then Baha'u'llah, - whom grew up with that Islamic myth, - and claims that different information is from God.

*
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Eternity?
Just a few years in the sack?

I'm more crazy about my wife now than ever before. I'm nearly 70!

Question: What did Bahauallah write about gender after death?

In some plaves it is said in Gods eye there is no Gender. It is our ability to give our all to each other that makes us who we truly are.

I personally see Gender as the best learning tool of how to unite opposite views in a harmonious relationship.

In other places Baha'u'llah has said His wife will be His Compainon in all the Worlds of God and said man and women should so bond and unite as to be as even One Soul.

What this life is preparing us for, Baha'u'llah said can not be disclosed.

Big subject....sorry off to work, love to discuss this further.

Regards Tony
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Then to each his own. The thing is we have tye authentic Writings of a recent Manifestation of God and records of the past the longer one goes back become harder to authenticate word for word.

We understand that in such a case a recent Manifestation's authenticated Scripture trumps thousand year old records which world for word cannot be fully authenticated.

According to the Quran the sacrifice was offered before Isaac was born.

Muhammad and Islam were prophesied in the Bible in many places.

See post # 8802.

*
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Question:- How many wives did Bahauallah have ?

That requires and answer in context

I would offer Baha'u'llah had One Companion who will abide with Him.

Each Messenger of God is born into a society that has Laws and they are the first to uphold these laws. In the case of Baha'u'llah and Muhammad, these laws compelled them to take more than one wife due to the persecution of their followers.

This needs discussion, sorry off to work right now

Regards Tony
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Resurrection is an integral and indispensable part of my Faith. It is an experience, but not a belief in a literal physical resurrection.

The alternative and literal view is being a part of the resurrection-salvation and union with god with the body of christ-rather than seeing literal as in jesus super manly fly up in the sky. Still literal. You're stuck on superman. :confused:

The obvious example for me is Mosaic law that was revealed to the Hebrew people during the 40 years spent in the desert. Part of that Revelation was to spiritual purify and prepare them for the conquest of the land of Canaan. Part of the law was to create a theocracy or system of law for the governance of the Jewish state. Not all of these laws remain relevant today and some are redundant such as punishments for working on the Sabbath. Similarly the laws on divorce were changed when Jesus came.

Each Manifestation of God reveals laws that are Eternal and that is what you are referring to. These are immutable, unchangeable laws from dispensation to dispensation. To love and respect God, ones parents, to tell the truth. Then there are transient laws that were never meant for Eternity.

Unchanging should be all scriptures throughout the ages that are relevant for all times. Manifestations shouldn't need to clarify another god-inspired book.

It is not changing what the Manifestations said or did, but simply understanding it better in light of what is known about history and culture.

Clarifying scripture by changing it (Ishmael instead of Isaac, Bahaullah instead of god, Symbolic resurrection as opposed to literal) is not understanding it better. You are understanding a different view of the bible, and in light of the body of christ rather than your individual belief (god spoke to people), you should see it as a unity/a body. That's why it doesn't sound like christianity. It sounds like a personal relationship and interpretation of scripture. I know it is not christian. I don't see why that matters to you when you still identify as Bahai. It would matter to me, though, because it makes me a hypocrite.

It is hard for you to accept that one Manifestation of God has the authority from God to abrogate and change laws that the previous Manifestation of God revealed. There are clear examples with Christ in regards to Judaism, Islam with both Christianity and Judaism, the Babi religion in regards Islam, and of course now the Baha'i Faith.

It would be odd for me to accept as authority Christ, Muhammad, Krishna (put in there just because), The Buddha, Zoroaster, and Bahaullah all at the same time. If I did, I wouldn't clarify anything they wrote. If they are inspired by god, as you say, then I have no need to change what they wrote. That's like changing what god wrote.

Because they translated according to their limited human understanding, not what God revealed to them. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, the gospels were written in Greek, later translated into Latin, and then there have been various attempts and revisions into English.

What?? :eek: Then the scriptures are not sacred eternal scriptures. Moses, Muhammad, Zoroaster, Christ, Abraham, and so forth are not inspired by god. (Krishna isn't inspired by himself; The Buddha's enlightenment has no god component to it)

But, if we went to Judaism, they have the actual tablets of Moses. Please, I hope you're not saying their oldest tablets are misunderstood and written by limited minds even though Moses was inspired by god (thereby cannot cause misunderstanding)

The first English translation of the Holy Quran was by Rodwell, a Christian, whose purpose was to discredit Islam.

I don't see how this has to do with the message and original authors inspiration from god. Nothing written and spoken in one language will be one hundred percent translated in another; and, I'm a student of learning a foreign language, linguistic, and interpreter to know this.

Now I'm seeing that you don't trust the original authors as inspired by god, yet called the books sacred, but have Bahaullah clarify the books for them as if clarifying what god wrote.

Are you saying god is limited?

Bahaullah's works are the only ones inspired by god???
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
THREE - :D - and who knows how many other women.

*

That answer you have given is with no intent to know the Truth in this matter.

To be just in our dealings with all people is a great virtue.

It is with Justice and compassion that Baha'u'llah took more than one Wife.

One has to know the Laws and the Conditions that required this course of action.

May you be happy and find what you are looking for in life.

Regards Tony
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I've said little about homosexuality on this thread, as it is a topic that ignites fierce debate and opinions. It is a topic that has become intensely political and polarises people. On each side of the debate there are assumptions and misunderstandings.

I'm good with the Baha'i perspective, and if people want to discuss the issue respectfully and sensitively, I will try to do the same.


I'm certainly not sure what you mean by 'respectfully and sensitively'? When religions are disrespectful and insensitive to certain groups of people, I think maybe it's unrealistic to expect a calm quiet response.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Yes, thank goodness for freedom of religion. Unbelievably, many folks don't realise they have this right, just as many folks don't realise they have the right to walk out of a hospital. (At least that's true in Canada. You just have to give a note to the staff removing them from any responsibility.)

Haha. You can, you just get a fat bill because the insurance things you opposed the doctor's choice on your treatment. The only time you have to stay is if it's a life threatening condition and someone else signs to make decisions for you.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Haha. You can, you just get a fat bill because the insurance things you opposed the doctor's choice on your treatment. The only time you have to stay is if it's a life threatening condition and someone else signs to make decisions for you.
Laws on this vary a lot between countries as far as I know. But that's off topic. The analogy was for how some hardened religious people think they have to stay in a religion at all costs. But that goes back to fear based religion. My former tenant, an Indian Christian whose ancestors and some friends were Hindu, confided to me, "I really wish I could just return to Hinduism, but I'm too afraid of going to hell." I just said, "Maybe next lifetime." It is sad how fear is the basis of some beliefs.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Salvation through Christ life, death, and resurrection via the service to humanity as one body of Christ.

.
It seems this is a very brief and limited part of teachings of Christianity. Bible has a lot more.
How do you know, every single Christian defines it exactly like you do here? Every single Christian that was ever born, since 2000 years ago?

However, the point I am trying to make, is, no single Christian person, can speak for all other Christians, as each Christian person may have a different view. No person can say, what Christians believe or do not believe, as through out generations, there has been many Christians, who even because of their own view, were killed or tortured by other Christians, simply because they had a different interpretation of teachings of Christianity. But having a different view than other Christians is not a proof, they were wrong. So, no single Christian or non-Christian gets to define Christianity for all Christians. So, now, who can speak for Christian beliefs? The standard that defines it, is Bible itself. The Bible speaks for it, as it describes the teachings of Christ.


.
The Passion doesn't teach about Bahaullah etc; so, Bahai faith is pretty much Bahai faith. Christianity through Bahai faith isn't Christianity.

.
What do you mean by the Passion!?

.
It's through Christ's body-the people-that define christianity. You're putting too little faith in the body (hence christ) and putting more emphasis on scripture.

.
Christianity had a founder, before the Christians even were born. Remember, Jesus said, He built His Church on the Rock, who was the Peter. It means, even at that time Christianity was already built, and defined by Christ. So, that proves, even before all these Christian denominations were born, Christianity was defined. To be a member of Body of Christ, needs to meet certain conditions. It is not like anyone who claims to be the follower of Jesus, becomes automatically a member of Body of Christ. I am sure Bible is clear on that.

.
If you like. I agree with Christians since it's the Christian faith. Even the Bible doesn't speak of Bahai belief. Though, the bible points to christ not the other way around. I gave scripture on that. Don't know if you read it in context.

.
Christian Bible talks about Bahaullah, in the same way that Jewish Bible talks about Jesus.
The many Jews disagreed Jesus is Messiah, and many Christians disagreed Bahaullah is return of Christ. But, we need to realize, no body could refute their Claim!


.
Bahaullah in the burning bush is a huge huge opposition from Jewish faith. Unless bahaullah is god no, Moses didn't talk to anyone other than god. Where in the bible does it say the person behind the burning bush was Bahallauh? I mean, I can give you scripture Moses went to god but will you believe it (since you believe in scripture) or would you believe what Bahaullah says about scripture?

There's a difference.

.

We need to recognize that, the Bible hints many times, that it has symbols, parables , and hidden meanings. The Authors of Bible did not say, everything they have written are literal facts.
Burning bush is symbolic in Bahai View. Bahais do not believe, literally a bush was burning, and that fire was God. Bahais believe a burning bush is symbol, and has a certain meaning.

This is how Abdulbaha explained it:

"But as to the question of the Trinity, know, O advancer unto God, that in each one of the cycles wherein the Lights have shone forth upon the horizons (i.e., in each prophetic dispensation) and the Forgiving Lord hath revealed Himself on Mount Paran (see Habbakkuk 3:3, etc.) or Mount Sinai, or Mount Seir (see Ezekiel 35), there are necessarily three things: The Giver of the Grace, and the Grace, and the Recipient of the Grace; the Source of the Effulgence, and the Effulgence, and the Recipient of the Effulgence; the Illuminator, and the Illumination, and the Illuminated. Look at the Mosaic cycle: The Lord, and Moses, and the Fire (i.e., the burning bush), the Intermediary; and in the Mohammedan cycle: The Lord, the Apostle (or Messenger, Mohammed), and Gabriel (for, as the Mohammedans believe, Gabriel brought the Revelation from God to Mohammed). Look at the sun and its rays and the heat which results from its rays; the rays and the heat are but two effects of the sun, but inseparable from it; yet the sun is one in its essence, unique in its real identity, single in its attributes, neither is it possible that anything should resemble it. Such is the essence of the Truth concerning the Unity, the real doctrine of the Singularity, the undiluted reality as to the (Divine) Sanctity."
Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 114-118
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Don't know if you are more interested in what I'm telling you since I know what you believe.
It seems this is a very brief and limited part of teachings of Christianity. Bible has a lot more.

It's a synopsis. Life (teachings of Christ/literal living christ's word), death (teachings and literal sacrifice/crucifixion), and resurrection (literal salvation unto god).

If you're looking for an OT recap, I haven't read the whole OT in quite awhile. Recently, I've gotten to Joshua. Again, though, I don't go by Baha'u'llah's words to interpret christian teachings.

What do you mean by the Passion!?

"The English word has its roots in the Latin passio, which means, simply, "suffering." Its first recorded use is in early Latin translations of the Bible that appeared in the 2nd century A.D. and that describe the death of Jesus.Feb 24, 2004." It describes christ's death in relation to a person's sacrifice, repentance, salvation, and resurrection. It's from Catholicism when Catholics, before Easter, start at Christ's life inscripted in pictures on the Church wall. We'd go around the Church to each picture that depicted each part of Christ's life, death, and resurrection story. It's an emotional devotion and walk through when you die with christ because, as sinners, Catholics believe that we have "killed christ" and have guilt from that line of suffering.

Christianity had a founder, before the Christians even were born. Remember, Jesus said, He built His Church on the Rock, who was the Peter. It means, even at that time Christianity was already built, and defined by Christ. So, that proves, even before all these Christian denominations were born, Christianity was defined. To be a member of Body of Christ, needs to meet certain conditions. It is not like anyone who claims to be the follower of Jesus, becomes automatically a member of Body of Christ. I am sure Bible is clear on that.

The Church/body was built with Christ and his disciples. The chosen people that, in christianity, lead to salvation was the chosen people-the Jews. The Church, as we know it today, is a link from the apostles. Christianity is just a word. In actuality, it is the continuation of Jewish teachings but the difference is that the Jews doesn't recognize christ as messiah and christ added the gentiles as part of the people to be saved not just the Jews.

To be a member of the body is to take the sacraments of christ. I would quote all scripture, but I don't think you'll learn from what I tell you just rebute it.

Christian Bible talks about Bahaullah, in the same way that Jewish Bible talks about Jesus.

No. Bahaullah (the person) didn't exist during the days of the Jews and Christians. The attributes you put to Bahaullah isn't specific to the Bahai faith and it is vaguely placed on many people not just revealed prophets.

The Jewish bible doesn't talk about jesus. It talks about a Messiah. Though @Tumah can give you a better explanation of that if you want to learn from him.

The many Jews disagreed Jesus is Messiah, and many Christians disagreed Bahaullah is return of Christ. But, we need to realize, no body could refute their Claim!

The Jews have a right to disagree with christian claims. Bahallauh is so far out of this that that's like claiming Krishna is a revealed prophet. Bahaullah is not the return of christ. Christ is the return of christ. That's all through scripture-christ returns. Christ the person.

We need to recognize that, the Bible hints many times, that it has symbols, parables , and hidden meanings. The Authors of Bible did not say, everything they have written are literal facts.

The bible is pretty clear cut in what it says and what it does not. Adding vague and abstract meanings doesn't make your belief fact just a different matter of opinion.

Burning bush is symbolic in Bahai View. Bahais do not believe, literally a bush was burning, and that fire was God. Bahais believe a burning bush is symbol, and has a certain meaning.

Yes. Though, it's more appropriate to see it from christian view if you want to use christian teachings in your faith. It's only common courtesy.

"But as to the question of the Trinity, know, O advancer unto God, that in each one of the cycles wherein the Lights have shone forth upon the horizons (i.e., in each prophetic dispensation) and the Forgiving Lord hath revealed Himself on Mount Paran (see Habbakkuk 3:3, etc.) or Mount Sinai, or Mount Seir (see Ezekiel 35), there are necessarily three things: The Giver of the Grace, and the Grace, and the Recipient of the Grace; the Source of the Effulgence, and the Effulgence, and the Recipient of the Effulgence; the Illuminator, and the Illumination, and the Illuminated. Look at the Mosaic cycle: The Lord, and Moses, and the Fire (i.e., the burning bush), the Intermediary; and in the Mohammedan cycle: The Lord, the Apostle (or Messenger, Mohammed), and Gabriel (for, as the Mohammedans believe, Gabriel brought the Revelation from God to Mohammed). Look at the sun and its rays and the heat which results from its rays; the rays and the heart are but two effects of the sun, but inseparable from it; yet the sun is one in its essence, unique in its real identity, single in its attributes, neither is it possible that anything should resemble it. Such is the essence of the Truth concerning the Unity, the real doctrine of the Singularity, the undiluted reality as to the (Divine) Sanctity."

Abdulbaha has no claim to the validity and interpretation of scripture. Only the body of christ.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

But homosexuality was just one example of where I find the Baha'i' seem out of touch. It has been 150 years after all. So much has changed. and is continuing to change at an alarming rate. So many new moral decisions like the right to die, genetic manipulation, new pollutants, all because of technology. And the Baha'i' have no real way to discuss stuff, as it simply wasn't there in Baha'u'llah's time.

I don't think 'out of touch' is not the best use of words. We simply have a perspective that reflects traditional family values of many cultures.

Working through moral issues such as euthanasia, genetic manipulation, and the environment are different types of issues, and the Baha'i Faith certainly has the institution capacity to approach each one. the Baha'i community has been increasingly involved in discussions about conservation at an international level and as you may know we have NGO status with the United Nations.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I found this interesting paper by a Baha'i woman. It is an interesting read, and shows how patriarchal culture and Baha'i men that come from that culture, keep pushing Baha'i women backward in the religious movement. Two quotes from it -

"In 1892 Bahá'u'lláh passed away, leaving the leadership of the Bahá'í community in the hands of his eldest son, Abdu'l-Bahá. The following year, a Bahá'í convert of Lebanese Christian background, Ibrahim Kheiralla, introduced the religion to the West. As was the case in nearly all religious groups in nineteenth-century America, women played a prominent role. Female converts generally outnumbered men by two to one. The August 20, 1910, issue of Bahá'í News stated "nine-tenths of the active workers in the Cause in the West are women." Not all Bahá'í men were delighted with this state of affairs. The same issue of Bahá'í News contained a letter from Charles Mason Remey complaining that in most Bahá'í localities women performed the bulk of the work, holding Bahá'í meetings in the early afternoons when men were unable to attend. Women, he held, were content simply to attend meetings, but men needed to do work and very few localities were organized for "efficient work." The belief existed among many American Bahá'í men that women ought to confine their activities to the teaching work, leaving administrative activities to men. This opinion was apparently reinforced by many of the Iranian Bahá'í teachers sent to America by Abdu'l-Bahá. In the fall of 1899 Edward Getsinger organized a "Board of Counsel" for the Bahá'ís of northern New Jersey. Isabella Brittingham was appointed corresponding secretary but was not a voting member of that body. In March 1900 Thornton Chase reported that Chicago had formed a "Board of Counsel" consisting of ten men. Later that year Abdu'l-Karim Tihrani reorganized the board, expanding its membership to nineteen and including women. The following year Mirza Assadu'llah isfahani again reorganized the governing body, insisting only men could be elected. At that time the board began calling itself the House of justice. Some Bahá'í women expressed dissatisfaction with this arrangement, complaining that "Mirza Assad'ullah ignored us, although they were all invited to meet with us, and he established a House of justice of men only."

"CONCLUSION

Perhaps no other religion offers a stronger scriptural basis for women's rights or a richer history for women to draw on than does the Bahá'í faith. Yet cultural barriers, rigidity of certain administrative structures, conceptions of authority, and literalistic interpretations of scripture have at times militated against the ability of women to obtain full equality within the Bahá'í community. Whereas all Bahá'ís in theory believe in the equality of men and women, there is no unanimity as to what that equality means. In many instances Bahá'í conceptions of equality have distanced them from more radical forms of Western feminism. Whether or not Bahá'í women will fully utilize the, potentialities of Bahá'í scriptures and history, or whether they will be relegated to "separate but equal spheres" that perpetuate structures of male dominance, remains to be seen. There exists no single theory of Bahá'í feminism, but Bahá'ís, men and women alike, are agreed on one principle: hierarchical systems that place men above women in a divinely ordained order have no sanction within the Bahá'í scriptures. In this respect the Bahá'í faith is unique among revealed religions."

From Baha'i Library Online - Susan Maneck - Women in the Bahá'í Faith

Highlighting mine of course - :)

*
 
Last edited:
Top