• 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?

siti

Well-Known Member
Tell me, what are the chances in your lifetime of producing a series of great compositions that will eclipse the accomplishments of Beethoven?
About the same as I have of getting a straight answer in a thread of almost 14,000 posts I should think! But the point I am making is not that we can all be Baha'u'llahs or Beethovens but that we don't need to be - we just need to be what we are and attain to what we can attain (the "widow's mite" and all that). When we put Messiahs on pedestals and venerate them, we place impossible spiritual targets before ourselves and then beat ourselves up with confessions and penitences because we can't reach them. That is not (IMO) spiritual enlightenment - the very opposite in fact.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
We had a dissident 'Baha'i' on this thread not too long ago. He's free to talk to Baha'is and Baha'is are free to talk to him. He has promoted his own version of the Baha'i Faith and published masses of stuff online. Baha'is can't stop that, anymore than we can stop the tide coming in and out. We just roll with it. However, although he is not considered a Baha'i (although Sen clearly considers himself a Baha'i) he is not considered a Covenant breaker.

Yes, and he seems incredibly clear about the entire thing. But like you said, not a Covenant Breaker. In Hindu communities that are close, like villages of the old days, people who go against the flow get 'the squeeze' . It's not as official, but yeah, basically they get shunned socially bu those who know. (Adulterers, cheats)
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
The line is very clear in regards to Covenant breaking. Its rare. Sen and others like him simply are not considered in that category.
Still nobody has informed me what those folks actually did to deserve that fate. My understanding at this point is that they openly declared Baha'u'llah some fraud, but I'm probably dead wrong too.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
2) Who said anything about proving anything. It\s all just belief. None of us can prove anything. It's silly suggesting we can.

If Bahaullah was not who He claims to be, certainly it was possible to disprove Him. Anyone who has knowledge the knowledge about the claims of Bahaullah would know why.
1. Bahaullah claimed to be infallible: to disprove His claim, all it takes it to prove there is an error in His writings. He has written about 17000 works. In His works, we find statements about previous religions traditions, historical accounts, scientific statements. It is reasonable to say, if there was a mistake in His writings, certainly His enemies would have proved one by now.
2. Bahaullah claimed to be the Promised One of All Religions; the Lord of Day of Resurrection, Return of Christ, the Return of Qaim of Islam, and the Promised One of all Religions: to disprove His claim all it takes, is to prove He does not match the authentic description of those Religions. Anybody who understands Prophecies of Religions would know, that in the Scriptures of Previous Religions, certain signs are given with Regards to the Promised One. For instance, where, when, how... He appears. Thus to disprove Bahaullah, all it takes is to show He does not fulfil the prophecies. It is irrelevant if someone believes in Prophecies or not. They can still demonstrate If Bahaullah does not fulfil them.
3. Bahaullah claimed that all His knowledge is divinely inspired, and He did not go to school to learn that knowledge, neither did He possess any books to learn or quote from, but yet, He knows all that has said or happened on earth: to disprove Bahaullah, all it takes is to show He went to school to learn about religions. History, science and or, He had books to learn or quote from. Certainly if there was such books or schools, it would have been known from historical evidences. The people who went to school in His time, are known in history where they went and what they learned, so, why wouldn't be known about Him, if He indeed went to some school?
4. Bahaullah claimed He knows of future events. For example He predicted down and falls of certain kingdoms and many other things: to disprove Bahaullah, all it takes is to show His prophecies failed.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
It's still kind of trial and error, though. Thalydomide, (sp) cigarettes, sugar, some social experiments have failed miserably. Overall I see improvement, hasn't been world war in 70 years. Some other positive things have endured, like yogic breathing techniques for relaxation, insight, and health.

The world has undergone phenomenal change in a relative short span in human history.

Humans increasing overlook their differences based on race, nationality, religion, and gender to see ourselves as one people living on one common homeland.

There is much greater equality between men and women.

Levels of prosperity overall have increased dramatically.

There has been an unprecedented revolution in science and technology.

Democracy has established itself as dominant for of government.

There is less international conflict and cooperation.

Human rights are generally much more considered than they use to be.

The list goes on.

We can not lose sight of the urgent challenges facing humanity either but overall there is good reason for celebration and hope.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
If Bahaullah was not who He claims to be, certainly it was possible to disprove Him. Anyone who has knowledge the knowledge about the claims of Bahaullah would know why.
1. Bahaullah claimed to be infallible: to disprove His claim, all it takes it to prove there is an error in His writings. He has written about 17000 works. In His works, we find statements about previous religions traditions, historical accounts, scientific statements. It is reasonable to say, if there was a mistake in His writings, certainly His enemies would have proved one by now.
2. Bahaullah claimed to be the Promised One of All Religions; the Lord of Day of Resurrection, Return of Christ, the Return of Qaim of Islam, and the Promised One of all Religions: to disprove His claim all it takes, is to prove He does not match the authentic description of those Religions. Anybody who understands Prophecies of Religions would know, that in the Scriptures of Previous Religions, certain signs are given with Regards to the Promised One. For instance, where, when, how... He appears. Thus to disprove Bahaullah, all it takes is to show He does not fulfil the prophecies. It is irrelevant if someone believes in Prophecies or not. They can still demonstrate If Bahaullah does not fulfil them.
3. Bahaullah claimed that all His knowledge is divinely inspired, and He did not go to school to learn that knowledge, neither did He possess any books to learn or quote from, but yet, He knows all that has said or happened on earth: to disprove Bahaullah, all it takes is to show He went to school to learn about religions. History, science and or, He had books to learn or quote from. Certainly if there was such books or schools, it would have been known from historical evidences. The people who went to school in His time, are known in history where they went and what they learned, so, why wouldn't be known about Him, if He indeed went to some school?
4. Bahaullah claimed He knows of future events. For example He predicted down and falls of certain kingdoms and many other things: to disprove Bahaullah, all it takes is to show His prophecies failed.

I don't believe you understand the word 'proof' at all. Belief is never proof.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
The world has undergone phenomenal change in a relative short span in human history.

Humans increasing overlook their differences based on race, nationality, religion, and gender to see ourselves as one people living on one common homeland.

There is much greater equality between men and women.

Levels of prosperity overall have increased dramatically.

There has been an unprecedented revolution in science and technology.

Democracy has established itself as dominant for of government.

There is less international conflict and cooperation.

Human rights are generally much more considered than they use to be.

The list goes on.

We can not lose sight of the urgent challenges facing humanity either but overall there is good reason for celebration and hope.
Indeed. Not sure if we agree on why, though, but I don't think that matters.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Still nobody has informed me what those folks actually did to deserve that fate. My understanding at this point is that they openly declared Baha'u'llah some fraud, but I'm probably dead wrong too.

You are dead wrong, but that's fine.

They openly declared Baha'u'llah to be who He said He was, but then called Abdu'l-Baha a fraud.

or declared Abdu'l-Baha to be Baha'u'llah's successor and opposed Shoghi Effendi.

or declared Shoghi Effendi to be Adbu'l-Baha's successor but opposed the Universal House of Justice.

In other words they have attempted to cause a schism in the Baha'i Faith like between the Sunni or Shi'a, or Catholic and Protestants.

Declaring such people covenant breakers is simply a protection against schism.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Isn't that sort of what you guys do with all the other faiths of the planet besides your own?
No, i really do not think so for the most part. However the Bahai people are not infallible. So, Bahais may misunderstand even the Bahai Scriptures. The difference is this: Bahaullah wrote, if anyone wants to know what He exactly meant, only Abdulbaha certainly can tell them what He meant. But we cannot find the same in scriptures of other Religions. For example Buddha or Krishna did not say, if they meant literally souls return in the world again as in reincarnation, or they were speaking symbolically. Likewise, Jesus did not appoint anyone for telling others what He exactly mean in a particular verse. Do you see the difference?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Indeed. Not sure if we agree on why, though, but I don't think that matters.

The fact we agree on that list as being positive changes, regardless of our inevitable different understanding about causes, establishes a degree of unity of thought. It enables us to talk much more easily than if we completely disagreed on the list.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
You are dead wrong, but that's fine.

They openly declared Baha'u'llah to be who He said He was, but then called Abdu'l-Baha a fraud.

or declared Abdu'l-Baha to be Baha'u'llah's successor and opposed Shoghi Effendi.

or declared Shoghi Effendi to be Adbu'l-Baha's successor but opposed the Universal House of Justice.

In other words they have attempted to cause a schism in the Baha'i Faith like between the Sunni or Shi'a, or Catholic and Protestants.

Declaring such people covenant breakers is simply a protection against schism.
Thank you for the info. Not really sure how it would have prevented schisms, as people could have gone on to form a new version. I guess they did, but it faded into oblivion?
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
No, i really do not think so for the most part. However the Bahai people are not infallible. So, Bahais may misunderstand even the Bahai Scriptures. The difference is this: Bahaullah wrote, if anyone wants to know what He exactly meant, only Abdulbaha certainly can tell them what He meant. But we cannot find the same in scriptures of other Religions. For example Buddha or Krishna did not say, if they meant literally souls return in the world again as in reincarnation, or they were speaking symbolically. Likewise, Jesus did not appoint anyone for telling others what He exactly mean in a particular verse. Do you see the difference?

I see no difference, and think you're putting blind faith into son, in my view. Certainly most Christian pastors will tell you they know exactly and precisely what the Bible means. Hinduism is much different, as we're not scripture based like that. We're experienced based, energy based, mystical. Scripture is only a small part of it.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
About the same as I have of getting a straight answer in a thread of almost 14,000 posts I should think!

What a great one liner!:D

But the point I am making is not that we can all be Baha'u'llahs or Beethovens but that we don't need to be - we just need to be what we are and attain to what we can attain (the "widow's mite" and all that).

I agree. We strive to be the best we can be, and no one can expect anything more of us than that.

When we put Messiahs on pedestals and venerate them, we place impossible spiritual targets before ourselves and then beat ourselves up with confessions and penitences because we can't reach them. That is not (IMO) spiritual enlightenment - the very opposite in fact.

There can be something profoundly unhealthy and unhelpful in what you say, I agree. On the other hand there are always those who are further along the path than us, that we can learn from. That seems like a healthy starting point. Some religious thinking can be pathological, even dare I say, delusional. :)

But then to deny the spiritual reality of our lives and those of others isn't healthy either.

On the balance, I think we are better off with no religion than the wrong religion.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you for the info. Not really sure how it would have prevented schisms, as people could have gone on to form a new version. I guess they did, but it faded into oblivion?

That's pretty much what's happened. There is no one group that is more than a few hundred followers.

Its important to realise that if you investigate the Baha'i faith and conclude that's its utter nonsense and go around ranting and raving about how bad it is...you can't possibly be labelled a covenant breaker either.

A pain in the neck, yes. A covenant breaker, no.:)
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Bahaullah claimed that all His knowledge is divinely inspired, and He did not go to school to learn that knowledge, neither did He possess any books to learn or quote from, but yet, He knows all that has said or happened on earth: to disprove Bahaullah, all it takes is to show He went to school to learn about religions. History, science and or, He had books to learn or quote from. Certainly if there was such books or schools, it would have been known from historical evidences. The people who went to school in His time, are known in history where they went and what they learned, so, why wouldn't be known about Him, if He indeed went to some school?
We already did that one ages ago - Baha'u'llah was, by either his own or by his son Abdu'l Baha's testimony both learned and highly literate (whether or not he was formally schooled) - go back and read the relevant posts for evidence from your own Baha'i library.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
4. Bahaullah claimed He knows of future events. For example He predicted down and falls of certain kingdoms and many other things: to disprove Bahaullah, all it takes is to show His prophecies failed.

I can also predict future events. "Something important will happen." Then when anything happens, the folks who believed me will say I am a saint, and they will reinterpret my words to suit what happened.

Baha'u'llah made absolutely no precise predictions, just generalizations, that were later interpreted to say something they didn't actually say, by those who wanted (or perhaps psychologically needed) to believe, much like yourself. So sure, you're to believe he was an infallible perfect manifestation who knew it all. That's your right.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree. Unfortunately people are often far too quick to define 'wrong' religion as any religion other than their own. That's what causes wars.

Actually I had these words in mind:

Religion should be the Cause of Love and Affection. Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion. All the holy prophets were as doctors to the soul; they gave prescriptions for the healing of mankind; thus any remedy that causes disease does not come from the great and supreme Physician.
Bahá'í Reference Library - Paris Talks, Pages 127-134


So your religion is the right religion for you as it clearly enables you to converse and associate with others different from yourself in a friendly and respectful manner.

If you shunned your friends, family, and others who were different from you because they are unworthy of understanding your 'enlightened' religion and you shouldn't tolerate fools lightly....

That would be a different story, don't you think?
 

siti

Well-Known Member
There can be something profoundly unhealthy and unhelpful in what you say, I agree. On the other hand there are always those who are further along the path than us, that we can learn from. That seems like a healthy starting point.
Right - as long as we acknowledge that we are learning from other humans "with feelings like ourselves" (James 5:17 cf Hebrews 4:15)

But then to deny the spiritual reality of our lives and those of others isn't healthy either.
That's the opposite to what I am saying.

Some religious thinking can be pathological, even dare I say, delusional...On the balance, I think we are better off with no religion than the wrong religion.
That is precisely what I am saying!

And of course someone who believes he has received a supernaturally-revealed divine appointment as the Messiah could not possibly be wrong could he? So the entire world should follow such a person regardless of what our ordinary common sense human thinking faculty might be screaming at us at the top of its rational voice? I think not!
 
Top