siti
Well-Known Member
Phew! That's a relief!
-
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?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
If you say this, from their own testimony, why not also go with what they claimed their learning comes from?
"....the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow. The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred...."
Bahá'í Reference Library - Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 57-60
siti
Well-Known Member
Me too! My fundie friends tell me that Christ's return could happen any day - my response is to predict a day on which I believe it definitely will not happen - so far my record is 100% and theirs is zero! With that as 'proof' I am fully expecting all Baha'is to vote Siti for Messiah at the next democratic Manifestation election.
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
Yes, the Pastors may claim that too. They are known to have studied bible, yet, there are proven errors in their writing. Abdulbaha never studied Religions. Yet, He has written many Books, and no mistakes can be proven to exist in them. See the difference?
His speech was to the theosophical society, which would have been quite in line with most of his thoughts. They too believed in a messiah figure, yet to come, and 'selected' Jiddu Krishnamurti as the most likely one. Like the good Hindu he was, he wouldn't accept the accolades, and Theosophy broke into schisms. I think it illustrated the Abahamic/dharmic differences in regards to prophets. That Hindu wanted no part of it. (Other Hindus have since come, being more than keen to declare themselves the next messiah.)
siti
Well-Known Member
Because they also claimed to having to wait until they read a copy of a book before they were able to comment on it and that they spent time discussing religious matters with the ulama (religious teachers) - I'm not looking all that up again - you can find it for yourself. Its one thing to speak with forked tongue but when you think with forked tongue as well you're in trouble in a rational discussion - let alone a religious debate.
Yes this is your belief. He was perfect. Aren't you lucky?
(I see no difference whatsoever ... both are wild claims that hold no water.)
Claiming you're infallible does not make you infallible, lol. Anybody can say anything they want to. Someone's own testimony means nothing. We've had 2, maybe 3 chaps come to RF and try to convince everyone here they were the next messiah. "I'm the next messiah because I say I'm the next messiah, and obviously these are the words of a messiah, so it must be true." It's folly to the extreme.
Last edited:
That's obvious.
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
So, why can't you find an error in their writings, and prove that they are not infallible? Why trying to avoid the challenge? After all, 17000 works are too many, not to find a single error in them, isn't it?
You can get help from Anti-bahai websites too. They read all of them just to find mistakes, to refute Bahaullah.
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
They never said 'until they read a copy of a book'. If you want to use their own words, why not be precise? Why changing it to say what you want it to say?
.
Really? Can you show who were these Ulama, and give an example of one of these discussions so, it may be known who learned what from who? I mean, why not farther digging to know accurately what was going on? Wouldn't you want to investigate a little more so you can make a fair conclusion?
siti
Well-Known Member
OK - Baha'u'llah actually said "As We had frequently heard about him, We purposed to read some of his works. Although We never felt disposed to peruse other peoples’ writings, yet as some had questioned Us concerning him, We felt it necessary to refer to his books, in order that We might answer Our questioners with knowledge and understanding." (Book of Certitude p.184)
How odd that the Divine Manifestation replete with supernatural knowledge of all truth could not comment with knoweldge and understanding regarding a contrary viewpoint until he had read the books!
Here is what I wrote in an earlier post in this thread - this speaks to the infallibility claim also because Abdu'l Baha makes directly contradictory claims about Baha'u'llah's association with men of learning (see my bold in the quotes) - they obviously cannot both be true.
Abdu'l Baha himself almost lets it slip in conversation with Baha'i "Hand of the Cause" John Esslemont:
"When He [Baha'u'llah] was only thirteen or fourteen years old He became renowned for His learning. He would converse on any subject and solve any problem presented to Him. In large gatherings He would discuss matters with the Ulama (leading mullas) and would explain intricate religious questions."
Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era: Chapter 3
That clearly shows that, in his youth, Baha'u'llah spent considerable time discussing religious matters with the "Ulama" - religious teachers. And this despite the fact that Abdu'l Baha himself makes a directly contradictory claim here:
"As all the people of Persia know, He had never studied in any school, nor had He associated with the ulamá or the men of learning...His companions and associates were Persians of the highest rank, but not learned men."
Some Answered Questions, Abdu'l Baha
"When He [Baha'u'llah] was only thirteen or fourteen years old He became renowned for His learning. He would converse on any subject and solve any problem presented to Him. In large gatherings He would discuss matters with the Ulama (leading mullas) and would explain intricate religious questions."
Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era: Chapter 3
That clearly shows that, in his youth, Baha'u'llah spent considerable time discussing religious matters with the "Ulama" - religious teachers. And this despite the fact that Abdu'l Baha himself makes a directly contradictory claim here:
"As all the people of Persia know, He had never studied in any school, nor had He associated with the ulamá or the men of learning...His companions and associates were Persians of the highest rank, but not learned men."
Some Answered Questions, Abdu'l Baha
How are these Great Beings explained?
No. Baha'is need to be able to learn from people very different from ourselves, not just other Baha'is. Like everyone else we need to the positives in another and spend more time working on our own shortcomings and not those of others.
Of course. I believe in God, the Manifestations and prophets, and an eternal soul. We're not going to agree about any of those in a hurry.
Of course all those contenders who make Messianic claims can not be correct. What God required of the Jewish people at the time of Christ was twofold. One to recognise the Messiah and secondly, not to follow false prophets. You are doing very well with the second. We have a difference of opinion about Baha'u'llah as anyone would expect.
What I have found there is trying and then there is trying and then there is trying and......you will get the idea.
In this journey no one is smarter than another, or dumber, or more evil, or more saintly.
You could be 1000 times smarter than all of us, you could be the smartest person on this planet. But the Spirit is not about being smart in this world, though that is a meritorious undertaking. You would know on your journey towards Moska that the Soul is faced with many challenges, yours challenges are not mine, but we never give up by saying we can not understand, we can know more each day, if we try....!
O My servants! Could ye apprehend with what wonders of My munificence and bounty I have willed to entrust your souls, ye would of a truth, rid yourselves of attachment to all created things, and would gain a true knowledge of your own selves — a knowledge which is the same as the comprehension of Mine own Being. Ye would find yourselves independent of all else but Me, and would perceive, with your inner and outer eye, and as manifest as the revelation of My effulgent name, the seas of My loving-kindness and bounty moving within you. Suffer not your idle fancies, your evil passions, your insincerity and blindness of heart to dim the lustre, or stain the sanctity, of so lofty a station. (Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 326)
That is applicable to all of us, we can only try to understand to find a balance and the balance is given; "The people of God have no dependence upon the conditions of this world; they neither become bittered with the bitterness of the cup, nor do they become intoxicated if the cup be sweet." (Compilations, Baha’i Scriptures, p. 501)
Strong words are given as motivate for us to grow, not to bring on self preservation. I am sure you can see them in this light.
Regards Tony
siti
Well-Known Member
Did you read the texts? What I meant was that what we are really learning from (regardless of where they got their message from) are the human Elijah and the human Jesus (in these texts - and if you examine the translation of the Tablet that I referred to earlier, the human Baha'u'llah too) - because even if the truths they expressed were supernaturally revealed to them by God, they were still processed through their human thinking faculties for the purposes of communicating them in speech or writing to other humans. Of course I agree that we should be prepared to entertain ideas very different from what we naturally find ourselves drawn to - but we do not have to abandon reason just because somebody claims to have been granted a supernatural insight.
Right - why? Why can they not all be correct? And how can we determine which, if any, are correct? Because it seems to me the signs of divine inspiration look remarkably like the signs of religious delusion - prolific writing, weird ideas or extraordinary interest in marriage and sexuality, propensity for engaging in long and winding (especially religious) discussions, extraordinary mystical experiences...how can we tell the difference?
Abdu'l-Baha used to say, you try your way and I'll try mine. Its good you have your way and that I have mine. It nice we can chat and enjoy the moment.
Regards Tony
Yes
That is an important point.
Of course.
I don't think you are seriously saying they can all be correct as David Koresh was on that list. Neither of us takes Moon's claim too seriously. Do you reject one who makes Messianic claims because He has three wives? We've discussed that. Its important that the Messiah is a moral, reasonable person, not immoral and irrational.
The capacity to cope with adversity is an important spiritual quality. We know that Baha'u'llah spent 40 years in prison and in exile and was tortured. Did Baha'u'llah live an exemplary life? How about His son Abdu'l-Baha who He appointed Successor. What kind of man was he?
How about His message? Did He reveal principles that would clearly be in keeping with the needs of humanity? We've looked at those principles. Much of it is in keeping with the spirit of the age as we've discussed.
If He had major mental illness such as schizophrenia, while accepting He may have had mystical experiences, He is less likely to be a contender for Messiah. We haven't been able to declare Him mad yet.
Did He successfully establish a community that were able to apply His Teachings to their lives and live exemplary lives? You can't really establish that unless you have personal contact with Baha'is. How about the development of a new pattern of community life based on His Teachings that in itself would provide inspiration and a model for the needs of humanity.
We could examine His writings and have a sense of message first hand that way.
Did He make any predictions about the future? Did they come true?
How about providing insight to unravel some of the more perplexing questions we may have of sacred scripture such as the OT and NT. That could be useful too.
There are actually quite a few lines of inquiry you could explore if you had the energy and inclination. But that's up to you. No ones forcing you to look at the Baha'i Faith if you don't want to.
siti
Well-Known Member
Here's one I came across when I wasn't even looking for it:
In another passage of the Gospel it is written: “And it came to pass that on a certain day the father of one of the disciples of Jesus had died.” That disciple reporting the death of his father unto Jesus, asked for leave to go and bury him. Whereupon, Jesus, that Essence of Detachment, answered and said: “Let the dead bury their dead.” - Book of Certitude 126
In fact there is no passage in the Gospels that says that the father of the disciple had died, only that the disciple asked leave to go and bury his father before following Jesus. It is quite possible (assuming without any sound basis for doing so that the account is true in any respect) that the disciple's father had not yet, in fact, died - and that would be a very reasonable explanation for Jesus' apparent lack of compassion - (the disciple might have been simply excusing himself - possibly for months or years - until such time as his father had in fact died) but the point is, it is very clearly a misquote because even if it is reasonable to assume that the man's father had died, the scripture does not say so and Baha'u'llah claims it as a direct quote - oops!
This is somewhat accurate to the facts of what Bahá’ís believe, Carlita. However, a bit of it is inaccurate, and much of it, also, is based upon an incomplete assessment of Bahá’u’lláh’s Teachings.
To begin with, in the Bahá’í Faith, there exists the basic idea of the two-fold nature of religions. Your post, as well as your criticisms of Bahá’í theology in general, fails to account for this, thus my denotation of your post as incomplete.
As for God, because of its origins within the context of the Abrahamic traditions, there is the belief in a personal Creator found in our faith. However, this is the conception on the relative level (in relation to other religions). On the absolute level, The Ultimate Reality, Bahá’u’lláh affirms that Its Essence can never be known (i.e. we will never fully understand Who or What constitutes It.) Therefore, each of the different cultures and religions has devised and cultivated its own understanding of the Ultimate Reality, which is valid but simultaneously accurate.
As for the matter of Peace, it deals not with the Religions Themselves, but rather with the people who profess to be Their Followers. They are who need to get straightened out.
No, “Life” as in “What actually is” or “Existence in the world or the larger universe seen totally and independently of any one person’s or culture’s perspective”. Again, this is speaking in the sense of absoluteness rather than relativity.
Concerning the Scriptures of earlier Religions, the word you want to use regarding Bahá’í Teachings here is “authentic”, not “correct”. The latter word, I feel, is far too ambiguous.
Here is my understanding of what we Bahá’ís believe happened with the earlier Scriptures (as with their Teachings):
#1, The Followers become so attracted to the “apparent reality” (i.e. what something says at face-value) of any given set of Scriptures that they become unwilling to accept any other way of understanding it.
OR
#2, The Followers of the Teachings build so much on top of the original Scriptures that they become buried underneath, especially since “to every word there are a thousand different meanings”. This can sometimes cause the Followers to lose sight of the fundamental Messages of The Scriptures.
The vagueness here is, actually, causing me to cringe a bit.
Concerning the matter of Reality, there, indeed, exists differences, though only in the perspectives of It and in the concepts, philosophies, (filters) built around It, not It unto Itself. Again, we do believe that It is but one and the same but the perspectives will be different.
Oh, yes we do, actually. We just differ on the matter. That doesn't mean that Christianity’s or anyone else’s understanding is false. To say that something is false is to say that it is not in accordance with fact or reality. Rather, the Trinity is valid, but ultimately inaccurate.
One Reality, Many Perspectives.
One Truth, Many Facets.
One God (One Ultimate Reality), Many Conceptions.
These are our conceptions of these things. Again, you miss this by half a mile.
This is commendable, Carlita.
Jiddu Krishnamurti didn't consider himself a follower of any religion; he was not a Hindu. If anything, he was critical of people's alliance with any form of religion, regarding religions as crutches in pursuit of an understanding of Truth.
Last edited: