• 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?

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Us versus them. Who do you think they hate more, you guys or us guys, or are we equally hated?

That site has literally hundreds of groups, sects, denominations and religions they comment on negatively. Both the Baha'is and Hindus are false religions, but you guys have all those gods of lust. We don't have any of that!

From browsing, I would say 90% of the anti-Baha'i stuff is either Christian or Islamic.

The worst site I have ever seen is Islamic.

Some of the Christian ones do at least make an effort to sort out their facts, but of course there is only one way to Jesus....

In comparison, I find ex-Baha'i rather reasonable. Anti-Hindu stuff tends to be scholarly, and harder to find the true point.

Common reasons why Baha'i leave seem to be their attraction to the social teachings but an insufficient understanding of the spiritual teachings.

Another reason is our focus on neighbourhood classes and devotional meetings for all, that has challenged everyone's comfort zone.

I think Hinduism is harder for Muslims and Christians to make sense of compared to the Baha'i Faith. Personally, I wouldn't go near what the Muslims and Christians have to say about the Hindus. I'm enjoying learning about it here from you guys and others on RF.
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
So neither the Bab nor Baha'u'llah had any idea they were fulfilling Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 8? In fact nobody knew this until it was 'revealed' (oops, sorry, 'interpreted') by Abdu'l Baha in 1908! And he didn't get the idea from any Messianic Christian writings such as Miller's or those who followed him? Honest - he didn't!

Of course the Bab and Baha'u'llah knew.

The Kitab-i-Iqan (1861) with references to the Olivet discourse was a clear indication that Baha'u'llah knew.

Kitáb-i-Íqán - Wikipedia
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
It is said that although there are millions of gods in Hinduism, not one is a god of love. (There are many gods of lust.) You are invited to read an
offsite.gif
open letter to Hindus on the
offsite.gif
Christian Answers site.
Whom should I love, when there is no one else other than me? Bahais, you would not understand.

"Eko ad, dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second)
"Nāsti, nāsti, nā nāsti kinchana" (No, no, no, not in the least)

Be happy in trying to boss over nine religions. Hinduism is different.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
So neither the Bab nor Baha'u'llah had any idea they were fulfilling Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 8? In fact nobody knew this until it was 'revealed' (oops, sorry, 'interpreted') by Abdu'l Baha in 1908! And he didn't get the idea from any Messianic Christian writings such as Miller's or those who followed him? Honest - he didn't!
We can see from the 'Terms' that Bahaullah used in His Writings, He made allusions that He and the Bab were fulfilling the Prophecies of Bible.
In the same Book, which you have looked a bit (Book of Certitude), you can see many of these allusions.
Let me give you one example:

it behooveth us to gird up the loins of endeavor, that haply, by the grace and bounty of God, we may enter the celestial City....

They that valiantly labor in quest of God’s will, when once they have renounced all else but Him, will be so attached and wedded to that City that a moment’s separation from it would to them be unthinkable. They will hearken unto infallible proofs from the Hyacinth of that assembly, and receive the surest testimonies from the beauty of its Rose and the melody of its Nightingale. Once in about a thousand years shall this City be renewed and readorned.


Now in these paragraphs, what do you think Bahaullah means by 'City'?

He is referring to the Heavenly Jerusalem being renewed. Why?

He is referring to the Prophecies of the End, the Vision that John saw, the New Jerusalem coming down from Heaven. Abdulbaha explained this:


"We have before explained that what is most frequently meant by the Holy City, the Jerusalem of God, which is mentioned in the Holy Book, is the Law of God. It is compared sometimes to a bride, and sometimes to Jerusalem, and again to the new heaven and earth. So in chapter 21, verses 1, 2 and 3 of the Revelation of St. John, it is said: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God.”


So, Bahaullah even when He was in Iraq, a major Muslim country, wrote that Book, in it, He is saying the Heavenly City is renewed, meaning the Prophecy is fulfilled.


Here is another example, Bahaullah pointing to OT prophecy, stating He is fulfilling it:


"Some lamented in their separation from Me, others endured hardships in My path, and still others laid down their lives for the sake of My Beauty, could ye but know it. Say: I, verily, have not sought to extol Mine own Self, but rather God Himself, were ye to judge fairly. Naught can be seen in Me except God and His Cause, could ye but perceive it. I am the One Whom the tongue of Isaiah hath extolled, the One with Whose name both the Torah and the Evangel were adorned. Thus hath it been decreed in the Scriptures of thy Lord, the Most Merciful. He, verily, hath borne witness unto Me, as I bear witness unto Him. And God testifieth to the truth of My words."
 
Last edited:

siti

Well-Known Member
@adrian009 and @InvestigateTruth

With all due respect, you have now completely discredited your own argument - you first claim that Baha'u'llah did not mention Daniel's prophecy because Muslims distrusted the "Gospel" and then when I suggest it might have been because he did not know he was fulfilling Daniel's prophecy you argue that he did know because he referred to the "Gospel" in the "Book of Certitude"!

You have now clearly shown that Baha'u'llah used the prophets - Isaiah in particular - and the New Testament - "the Olivet Discourse" and passages from Revelation - to establish his own credentials. Why then did he fail to mention the prophecy of Daniel that not only (according to current Baha'i interpretations) refers directly to the Bab and Baha'u'llah but also indicates the exact year of the Bab's appearance.

Why was it left, not to Abdu'l Baha as you claimed, but Ibrahim George Kheiralla - a Lebanese Christian convert to Baha'i - to introduce the Millerite interpretation of Daniel 8:13-14 to the Baha'i faith? Why were the Bab and Baha'u'llah apparently entirely ignorant of this very specific and (now) very important piece of the prophetic jigsaw puzzle? And was Kheiralla's interpretation right? He got a few other Daniel things wrong it seems.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
There are 2 issues that needs to be considered with regards to Prophecies and their fulfilment.
They should not be considered. The year 2017 is coming to an end. This is not seventh Century. If Bahaullah talked about prophecies, put him in pseudo-science forum. I just wonder how backward people can be!

And I tell you, that Kali avatara will come after 45,881 years is just a strategy to block all such bogus claims, otherwise people in Hinduism also would have claimed to be avataras. In spite of this, people or their followers still claim them to be avataras.
It must be tough being an atheist with no gods to love. Some of these gods of lust must be enticing though....
Rati - Wikipedia
You sure you don't want to be a theist?
Yes, I enjoyed my sex life without the help of these Gods. :D
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
With all due respect, you have now completely discredited your own argument - you first claim that Baha'u'llah did not mention Daniel's prophecy because Muslims distrusted the "Gospel" and then when I suggest it might have been because he did not know he was fulfilling Daniel's prophecy you argue that he did know because he referred to the "Gospel" in the "Book of Certitude"!

The Kitab-i-Iqan was written to one of the Uncles of the Bab who had questions about the unity of religion. Baha'u'llah uses verses from the gospels with symbols of a universal nature such as the sun, moon, and stars to highlight that the gospels are uncorrupted and Divine in origin just as the Quran is. He makes this point much more explicit in another section:

We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, 90 the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!


Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

You have now clearly shown that Baha'u'llah used the prophets - Isaiah in particular - and the New Testament - "the Olivet Discourse" and passages from Revelation - to establish his own credentials. Why then did he fail to mention the prophecy of Daniel that not only (according to current Baha'i interpretations) refers directly to the Bab and Baha'u'llah but also indicates the exact year of the Bab's appearance.

The verse IT referred to mentioning Isaiah was from a tablet to Alaxandra II Czar of Russia, a Christian.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 27-30

Why was it left, not to Abdu'l Baha as you claimed, but Ibrahim George Kheiralla - a Lebanese Christian convert to Baha'i - to introduce the Millerite interpretation of Daniel 8:13-14 to the Baha'i faith? Why were the Bab and Baha'u'llah apparently entirely ignorant of this very specific and (now) very important piece of the prophetic jigsaw puzzle? And was Kheiralla's interpretation right? He got a few other Daniel things wrong it seems.

Ibrahim Kheirella became a covenant breaker as He openly tried to usurp the Abdu'l-Baha as the leader of the Baha'i Faith in the USA. He is not an authorised interpreter of the Baha'i Faith.

Ibrahim George Kheiralla - Wikipedia
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yes, I enjoyed my sex life without the help of these Gods. :D
Ah, yes, but I believe (have never watched, you understand) that theists do have assistance from their deities during love-making......... have even been known to call out to them at times of excitement.

So the delicate question begs, 'Have you ever called out to any body yourself?'

:p
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
The sacraments of christ is all throughout the bible. The Church does not hold claims on the sacraments just the name itself. If you change the name, its: baptism, confirmation (saying jesus is lord), repentance, and communion. Repentance and communion are in the OT. The rest are in the gospels and Acts. It has nothing to do with The Church.



Christ isn't an incarnation or manifestation of god. He is a human blessed by his father, does the work of his father, represents his father's oral dictations: His-his father's-Words as The Word (play on words). He is no longer human once he is god.



The Church has nothing to do with what I am saying.



I think sacraments, traditions, and customs are trigger words for you. They are all there in the bible throughout the bible.

He is from god not a manifestation as god.

Muhammad was from god too. That does not make them god. Muslims and Jews know this with their prophets. Most Christians and Bahai do not.


Buddhism does not identify with The Buddha. It is about the Dharma. Seeing The Buddha as a "prophet" or manifestation is totally against The Buddha's teachings.

What? There are religions that have multiple gods with no head god. There are Pagan gods from Greek mythology. There is a female concept of a creator (one creator) in Africa where ancestors and other gods/spirits relate to their believers so they can relate to their god: no deceased prophets and no teachers.

That is a total generalization. The Buddha is not "great." The Dharma is great. He realized the teachings. He did not create them.



All god-religions? That's a mistake and generalization. Explain how Bahaullah and Pagan Zues relate to each other. They both are divine for lack of better words. Explain how the Pagan god(s) are not the same as the god of abraham?

Believe in a god does not qualify that deceased believer(s) must be manifestations of these gods yet the ones who are alive are pushed aside and told they are limited in knowledge when these two "people" who found god are only separated by time and whether one has passed or lives.



We cannot speak for Hinduism. We can make assumptions. We can guess. We can try to interpret their books from our filters. That does not mean our opinions and beliefs are facts.



I mentioned this and you did not comment.

The Dharma: The physical Dharma will decay. A lot of the Sangha (monastics) will stop practicing but The Dharma does not disappear just because people stop practicing and keeping it. It's natural that physical teachings and customs die out with the times.

The Dharma does not.

The religion does not last. What they teach lasts.



You'd have to quote what you're referring to.



No. That is why we have beliefs. They are facts to us but they are beliefs if talking universally. Facts are universal regardless who does not know it. Beliefs are not.

That is your belief. The Buddha taught that god (Brahma), who he believed existed-he is a theist-does not lead to enlightenment. He literally challenged the incarnation of Brahma (Mara) and said that there is nothing eternal; and, to say so is to go against the laws of nature: the nature of change and karma.

There are no manifestations in Buddhism. That is all bahai beliefs.

They don't need to be proven or disprove. You can hit someone and that person will hit you back or run away. That is karma. You made an action. The person either defended himself or fled. You were affected by your actions via consequences of them. Things change. What you believe now years later you may believe something else. Your perspective changes with time. Your mind changes. If not? Did you think the same way when you were a kid as you do now? We suffer. We have unsatisfactory events we go through in life. A woman with a dying child does not need The Buddha's teachings to know she is suffering.

You do not need god to know this.

Ok. What did the 12 disciples believe in? The Bible and sacraments didn’t exist at the time. That’s my point. They believed in Christ without any of the current traditions or customs as they didn’t come into existence until hundreds of years after Christ had died.

We can never know what it is like to be a ‘traditional’ Christian but we can still believe in Christ. The basis of their belief was Chrust was sent by God.

What I’m saying is we can still believe in Christ like the dusviples did and that was good enough for Christ. The same with all the other Teachers.

Buddhists follow Dhamma but Who’s Dhamma? The Buddha’s not anyone’s Dhamma so it still brings us back to the Messenger, Teacher, Prophet, Manifestation or Prophet doesn’t it?

Another question. How do you know that every teaching that is attributed to Buddha is from Him?

It’s like the hadiths and Sayings of Muhammad many of which were false have been accepted as truth and terrorists use them to justify violence when they never came from Muhammad at all.
The sacraments of christ is all throughout the bible. The Church does not hold claims on the sacraments just the name itself. If you change the name, its: baptism, confirmation (saying jesus is lord), repentance, and communion. Repentance and communion are in the OT. The rest are in the gospels and Acts. It has nothing to do with The Church.



Christ isn't an incarnation or manifestation of god. He is a human blessed by his father, does the work of his father, represents his father's oral dictations: His-his father's-Words as The Word (play on words). He is no longer human once he is god.



The Church has nothing to do with what I am saying.



I think sacraments, traditions, and customs are trigger words for you. They are all there in the bible throughout the bible.

He is from god not a manifestation as god.

Muhammad was from god too. That does not make them god. Muslims and Jews know this with their prophets. Most Christians and Bahai do not.


Buddhism does not identify with The Buddha. It is about the Dharma. Seeing The Buddha as a "prophet" or manifestation is totally against The Buddha's teachings.

What? There are religions that have multiple gods with no head god. There are Pagan gods from Greek mythology. There is a female concept of a creator (one creator) in Africa where ancestors and other gods/spirits relate to their believers so they can relate to their god: no deceased prophets and no teachers.

That is a total generalization. The Buddha is not "great." The Dharma is great. He realized the teachings. He did not create them.



All god-religions? That's a mistake and generalization. Explain how Bahaullah and Pagan Zues relate to each other. They both are divine for lack of better words. Explain how the Pagan god(s) are not the same as the god of abraham?

Believe in a god does not qualify that deceased believer(s) must be manifestations of these gods yet the ones who are alive are pushed aside and told they are limited in knowledge when these two "people" who found god are only separated by time and whether one has passed or lives.



We cannot speak for Hinduism. We can make assumptions. We can guess. We can try to interpret their books from our filters. That does not mean our opinions and beliefs are facts.



I mentioned this and you did not comment.

The Dharma: The physical Dharma will decay. A lot of the Sangha (monastics) will stop practicing but The Dharma does not disappear just because people stop practicing and keeping it. It's natural that physical teachings and customs die out with the times.

The Dharma does not.

The religion does not last. What they teach lasts.



You'd have to quote what you're referring to.



No. That is why we have beliefs. They are facts to us but they are beliefs if talking universally. Facts are universal regardless who does not know it. Beliefs are not.

That is your belief. The Buddha taught that god (Brahma), who he believed existed-he is a theist-does not lead to enlightenment. He literally challenged the incarnation of Brahma (Mara) and said that there is nothing eternal; and, to say so is to go against the laws of nature: the nature of change and karma.

There are no manifestations in Buddhism. That is all bahai beliefs.

They don't need to be proven or disprove. You can hit someone and that person will hit you back or run away. That is karma. You made an action. The person either defended himself or fled. You were affected by your actions via consequences of them. Things change. What you believe now years later you may believe something else. Your perspective changes with time. Your mind changes. If not? Did you think the same way when you were a kid as you do now? We suffer. We have unsatisfactory events we go through in life. A woman with a dying child does not need The Buddha's teachings to know she is suffering.

You do not need god to know this.

I think the Word Manifestation is being mistaken for God. A Manifestation of God just means Prophet or Teacher or Voice of God but not God Himself. Baha’u’llah speaks on behalf of God but is not God Himself.

Yes Dhamma is still here as is the Torah, Bible and Quran but how we need a solution for today’s disunity between Faiths, nations and races.

There is urgent need for a universal ethic which can embrace all humanity.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, 90 the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!

Now, can any member translate the above into simple English, less the flowers and nightingales? A single sentence of precis would be perfect.

And how about this God, this avenging, angry, scourging, chastising heavenly king? Nice....... :p
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Now, can any member translate the above into simple English, less the flowers and nightingales? A single sentence of precis would be perfect.

And how about this God, this avenging, angry, scourging, chastising heavenly king? Nice....... :p

Come on? You're a man of education. What does it mean? God's gonna kick your sorry a***. That's what it means.:D
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Now, can any member translate the above into simple English, less the flowers and nightingales? A single sentence of precis would be perfect.

And how about this God, this avenging, angry, scourging, chastising heavenly king? Nice....... :p

On a slightly more serious notes, as Jesus's reserved His most severe criticism for the religious leadership of His people (particularly the Pharisees), so Baha'u'llah was very critical of the Islamic clergy or leaders who had corrupted Islam. The Mulla's were dismissive of the authenticity of the Bible. Baha'u'llah refutes view as being contrary to a loving God.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
On a slightly more serious notes, as Jesus's reserved His most severe criticism for the religious leadership of His people (particularly the Pharisees), so Baha'u'llah was very critical of the Islamic clergy or leaders who had corrupted Islam. The Mulla's were dismissive of the authenticity of the Bible. Baha'u'llah refutes view as being contrary to a loving God.

Fair enough.

On the side, the Pharisees were a strange bunch of folks, some were self-elevated peasants, others were Levites of too low an order to join the priesthood, yet others were members of the priesthood.
Fi, Flavius Josephus was a Levite, a priest and a pharisee.

I wonder if I might dare to ask @Jayhawker Soule ? (*shivers*)

I have yet to nail down exactly what position, influence and powers the Pharisees had 'in their own name'.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Fair enough.

On the side, the Pharisees were a strange bunch of folks, some were self-elevated peasants, others were Levites of too low an order to join the priesthood, yet others were members of the priesthood.
Fi, Flavius Josephus was a Levite, a priest and a pharisee.

I wonder if I might dare to ask @Jayhawker Soule ? (*shivers*)

I have yet to nail down exactly what position, influence and powers the Pharisees had 'in their own name'.

Definitely will be interesting to have a Jewish perspective on the Pharisees. I don't think he'll be too keen on the pro Jeus stance of the Baha'is.:)
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
@adrian009 and @InvestigateTruth

With all due respect, you have now completely discredited your own argument - you first claim that Baha'u'llah did not mention Daniel's prophecy because Muslims distrusted the "Gospel" and then when I suggest it might have been because he did not know he was fulfilling Daniel's prophecy you argue that he did know because he referred to the "Gospel" in the "Book of Certitude"!

You have now clearly shown that Baha'u'llah used the prophets - Isaiah in particular - and the New Testament - "the Olivet Discourse" and passages from Revelation - to establish his own credentials. Why then did he fail to mention the prophecy of Daniel that not only (according to current Baha'i interpretations) refers directly to the Bab and Baha'u'llah but also indicates the exact year of the Bab's appearance.

Why was it left, not to Abdu'l Baha as you claimed, but Ibrahim George Kheiralla - a Lebanese Christian convert to Baha'i - to introduce the Millerite interpretation of Daniel 8:13-14 to the Baha'i faith? Why were the Bab and Baha'u'llah apparently entirely ignorant of this very specific and (now) very important piece of the prophetic jigsaw puzzle? And was Kheiralla's interpretation right? He got a few other Daniel things wrong it seems.

Bahaullah wrote everything in Scriptures were fulfilled:


"In this Day a great festival is taking place in the Realm above; for whatsoever was promised in the sacred Scriptures hath been fulfilled. "

"THE time fore-ordained unto the peoples and kindreds of the earth is now come. The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled. "

"I testify that, through Thy Revelation, the things hidden in the Books of God have been revealed, and that whatsoever hath been recorded by Thy Messengers in the sacred Scriptures hath been fulfilled.’”


He told people to ask Abdulbaha when they need to know what Bahaullah means:

"Verily, I have appointed One Who is the Center of My Covenant. All must obey Him; all must turn to Him; He is the Expounder of My Book, and He is informed of My purpose. All must turn to Him. Whatsoever He says is correct, for, verily, He knoweth the texts of My Book. Other than He, no one doth know My Book."
 
Last edited:
Top