Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, we are all entitled to have our own opinions.
-
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!
Does Free Will Exist?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
Talk of free will cannot reach any conclusion since we do not ask “Free will for whom?” We do not know the “I”.
ecco
Veteran Member
ecco said: ↑
Is the writer saying that the Qur'an is wholly authentic?
Here is what is written...
The clear conclusion is that the Qur'an is wholly authentic. Thaat means that an illiterate man went into the desert, returned. and dictated the Quran to scribes.
How can you interpret it any differently?
Is the writer saying that the Qur'an is wholly authentic?
Here is what is written...
The clear conclusion is that the Qur'an is wholly authentic. Thaat means that an illiterate man went into the desert, returned. and dictated the Quran to scribes.
How can you interpret it any differently?
ecco
Veteran Member
So, another comparison to other religions, just pick and choose as you want.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Free will for whoever wants to know if they have free will.
That is the "I."
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You omitted the last part of that sentence and without that you do not get the full meaning...
...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)
He seems to be saying that the Qur’an is wholly authentic, but when you look at the entire sentence, that leaves room for doubt. If the Guardian wanted to say that BOTH the Qur’an and the writings of Bahá'u'lláh were wholly authentic, he could have written it like this:
...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings in the Qur’an and the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
The bottom line is that unless we know the names of all the scribes who wrote what Muhammad dictated to them, we cannot say the Qur’an is wholly authentic in the sense of being of undisputed origin. We know Baha’u’llah either wrote His writings in His Own Pen or dictated them to His secretary, and we know the name of His secretary. We also know that the writings that were dictated to His secretary are the words he spoke because Baha’u’llah read them over and stamped them with His official seal.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is not what I said.
I said that we can have our own opinions.
There is much controversy among scholars surrounding the Bible and just how accurate it is, so Baha’i opinions vary. That is why we are allowed to make of it what we will.
ecco
Veteran Member
I omitted it because it has no bearing on anything. That the Koran may be subordinate to whatever Bahá'u'lláh wrote does not detract from the comment that it is wholly authentic.
Also, this is not something that Bahá'u'lláh said. It is something that Bahai apologists said because they saw an "oops" and had to try to tap dance around it.
But, the Guardian said what he said. He did not say what you would have him say.
Maybe whoever said "The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, " should have thought of that, Then others and you would not have to run around making stuff up.
ecco
Veteran Member
ecco said: ↑
So, another comparison to other religions, just pick and choose as you want.
Yeah. That's what I said - all religious people pick and choose what to believe and what to ignore. In this regard, as well as most others, Bahai is just another same-o same-o run of the mill religion.
So, another comparison to other religions, just pick and choose as you want.
Yeah. That's what I said - all religious people pick and choose what to believe and what to ignore. In this regard, as well as most others, Bahai is just another same-o same-o run of the mill religion.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I see that now that I read it again. Perhaps that is what he meant.
Perhaps we need to look at other statements he or others made about the Qur’an IF we want to know the Baha’i position.
Maybe, and the best source would be Baha’u’llah. After all, he was raised as a Muslim so I am sure He had an opinion on the Qur’an…. Finding it in His Writings might be another matter.
He said what he said but people are not all going to interpret what he said in exactly the same way.
Maybe he should have thought of that, IF he meant that the Qur’an is wholly authentic.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Just because we can and do pick and choose what to believe and what to ignore about the Bible, that does not mean we can and do pick and choose what to believe and what to ignore about the Baha'i Faith.
Some Baha'is might pick and choose but that is their choice since we all have free will to choose. That is no reflection on the religion, it is a reflection on the believer.
ecco
Veteran Member
That's the beauty of religious scripture, everyone gets to pick and choose what to believe and what to dismiss. That may be one reason why religious scripture is so voluminous - to make sure there is something for everyone.
See above.
ecco
Veteran Member
Are you the Trailblazer who said...
"Interpreting" is picking and choosing. Picking and choosing is "Interpreting".
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That could well be true, since it is addressed to everyone.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, interpreting is explaining the meaning of words.
Interpret : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
Definition of INTERPRET
Interpreting is essential with anything we read because a words have no meaning unless they are interpreted. Everyone interprets everything they read as they read. You are interpreting what I wrote here as you read it.
The primary reason there are so many sects of Christianity is because they all interpret the Bible differently. Just ask several Christians to interpret the same verse and see what they come up with.
ecco
Veteran Member
"Interpreting" is picking and choosing. Picking and choosing is "Interpreting".
The method of picking and choosing is interpretation.
Moderate Christians interpret Genesis as allegory. They are choosing to disbelieve the Flood story. Pick and Choose.
Fundamentalist Christians interpret Genesis as fact. They are choosing to believe the Flood story. Pick and Choose.
The same process exists with all religious people from all religions.
There are thousands of Christian dominations because people pick and choose.
There are thirteen Bahai dominations because people pick and choose.
Sects OF Bahá'ís
I guess the concept of unifying all religious believers isn't going too well.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is laughable, there are no Baha’i sects and there never will be. Covenant-breakers who CALL themselves Baha’is are not Baha’is.
There are no Baha’i sects, there is only ONE Baha’i Faith, the one that adheres to the Covenant of Baha’u’llah as per His Will and Testimony.
Kitáb-i-'Ahd
The Kitáb-i-`Ahd (Arabic: ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻬﺪﻱ literally "Book of My Covenant") is the Will and Testament of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, where he selects his son `Abdu'l-Bahá as his successor. It was written at least one year before Bahá'u'lláh died in 1892.[1] An English translation is included in the Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed After the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, published in 1978.
While the Tablet of the Branch, composed in the Adrianople period had clearly signaled a high station for "the Branch of Holiness" and the Kitáb-i-Aqdas has specified that this high station involved leadership of the Bahá'í community after Bahá'u'lláh's passing, it was only with the unsealing of the Kitáb-i-`Ahd after the passing of Bahá'u'lláh in 1892 that it was confirmed that the Branch referred to was indeed `Abdu'l-Bahá.[2]
Designation of Succession
In the Kitáb-i-`Ahd, Bahá'u'lláh refers to his eldest son `Abdu'l-Bahá as Ghusn-i-A'zam (meaning "Mightiest Branch" or "Mightier Branch") and his second eldest son Mírzá Muhammad `Alí as Ghusn-i-Akbar (meaning "Greatest Branch" or "Greater Branch").[3][note 1]
Bahá'u'lláh designates his successor with the following verses:
The Will of the divine Testator is this: It is incumbent upon the Aghsán, the Afnán and My Kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch. Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: ‘When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root.’ The object of this sacred verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch [‘Abdu’l-Bahá]. Thus have We graciously revealed unto you Our potent Will, and I am verily the Gracious, the All-Powerful. Verily God hath ordained the station of the Greater Branch [Muḥammad ‘Alí] to be beneath that of the Most Great Branch [‘Abdu’l-Bahá]. He is in truth the Ordainer, the All-Wise. We have chosen ‘the Greater’ after ‘the Most Great’, as decreed by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Informed.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitáb-i-'Ahd
The other groups who call themselves Baha’is are not Baha’is, they are Covenant-breakers:
Definition
Covenant-breaking does not refer to attacks from non-Bahá'ís or former Baha'is. Rather, it is in reference to internal campaigns of opposition where the Covenant-breaker is seen as challenging the unity of the Bahá'í Faith, causing internal division, or by claiming or supporting an alternate succession of authority or administrative structure. The central purpose of the covenant is to prevent schism and dissension.[1] In a letter to an individual dated 23 March 1975, the Universal House of Justice wrote:
When a person declares his acceptance of Bahá'u'lláh as a Manifestation of God he becomes a party to the Covenant and accepts the totality of His Revelation. If he then turns round and attacks Bahá'u'lláh or the Central Institution of the Faith he violates the Covenant. If this happens every effort is made to help that person to see the illogicality and error of his actions, but if he persists he must, in accordance with the instructions of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, be shunned as a Covenant-breaker.
A Covenant-breaker or the act of Covenant-breaking is a term used by Bahá'ís to refer to a form of disunity: "The specific mission of Bahá'u'lláh relates to world unity. Since it would be impossible for the Bahá'í Faith to unite the world if it were itself disunited, the role of the covenant as the guarantor of the unity of the Bahá'í community becomes inextricably linked with the goal of world unity: "It is evident that the axis of oneness of the world of humanity is the power of the Covenant and nothing else." (TDP 49, cf GPB 239, SWA 208-9).[1] Being declared a Covenant-breaker is done by the head of the Faith — which is the Universal House of Justice, which has nine members and is the governing body of the Bahá'ís since 1963. Bahá'ís avoid association with Covenant-breakers, even if they are a family member
Covenant-breaker - Wikipedia
It is going just fine and it will continue to go fine, because of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah
The Bahá’í Faith began with the mission entrusted by God to two Divine Messengers—the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh. Today, the distinctive unity of the Faith They founded stems from explicit instructions given by Bahá’u’lláh that have assured the continuity of guidance following His passing. This line of succession, referred to as the Covenant, went from Bahá’u’lláh to His Son ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and then from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to His grandson, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice, ordained by Bahá’u’lláh. A Bahá’í accepts the divine authority of the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh and of these appointed successors.
Bahá’u’lláh and His Covenant | What Bahá’ís Believe
We Never Know
No Slack
To anyone that has posted in this thread, did you...
-have to?
-were forced to?
-tricked to?
-made to?
-etc.
-or did you choose to?
If you chose to, in my opinion, there's your evidence that freewill exists.
-have to?
-were forced to?
-tricked to?
-made to?
-etc.
-or did you choose to?
If you chose to, in my opinion, there's your evidence that freewill exists.