• 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!

Christianity : Is Christendom strengthened by Bahaullah?

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Before we can draw a conclusion like you have stated, one would have to ask the Jew, that then became a Christain, if they beleive they were not loyal to their Jewish Faith.

A person can draw any conclusion they want to. There is no prerequisite to being able to conclude that Baha'i adds nothing to Christianity. A billion people (well, not quite, just those Christians who have heard of Baha'i at all) have already done it. I'm neither and I can see it easily. Extending some Australian highway beyond it's original endpoint doesn't help people get to that endpoint. It's illogical.
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It is clear that Muhammad told them, that the the Trinity was false doctrine.

You will also know that Muhammad confirmed Christ was a Messenger.
Yes, exactly. The things Christians thought were true, the that they made into core doctrines, Muhammad says are false. But says Jesus was a true Messenger? But, what was His message? If Christians got it wrong, then we don't know. His followers are the ones that wrote down and told us what his message was.

Lovers of New Testament rather find it enriching. Some might even consider keeping just the New Testament (no dilution at all)
Lovers of Bible without New Testament will find the addition diluting their version of the Bible
How many Christians read and the Jewish Scriptures? The Christians I knew studied mostly the NT and only a few verses from what they call the "OT". Plus, it is with a Christian interpretation. And those that read only the Jewish Scriptures and not the NT are probably Jews and reject the things taught in the NT as false.

"all religions are from God and good". BUT 90% of the Bahai I met continue afterwards telling "but finally all need to accept Bahai, to reach the highest goal". And with that last phrase they kill in 1 blow all the good created before.
That's the problem. Baha'is can say they believe in all the other religions, but they only believe the Baha'i interpretation of those other religions. I go round and round with Baha'is about the resurrection of Jesus. Something that seems like the NT teaches as a real event in history. But the Baha'is Faith can't have it being real, so they make it a symbolic, figurative event. So for Christians to believe that Jesus came back to life is a false belief. And Baha'is say that those Christians are making the mistake of taking things written in the NT too literally.

I always add reincarnation into the argument also. They usually say that the Hindu Messenger from God never taught that... that people added that teaching in. So sure, Baha'is can say they "believe" that all the other religions are true and from the one God, but they reinterpret all the other religions and make them compatible with Baha'i beliefs.

The more I look, the more I see that they are from the same source, the differences that I see, are when man has added to the original source/teaching.
Wow, and here it is. A Baha'i saying that the differences are from people adding things into the "original" message. What was that "original" message in the different religions? It is what Baha'is tell us it is. That's part of the problem. It means we can't believe and practice those other religions as taught by people in those other religions, because we can't trust what they are teaching us is the Truth.

So Tony, oh by the way, I'm glad you are still here supporting the Baha'i Faith, but... prior to Baha'u'llah, what would you have believed to be the truth about God? Islam? Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism or Buddhism? Or any other religious belief? Was there any that you would say taught they truth about God?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
f Christians got it wrong, then we don't know. His followers are the ones that wrote down and told us what his message was.

We all get to read what was recorded, without having to accept the doctrine.

We all get to read the Bible and Quran and any Holy scripture.

Thus we all get to choose. That choice in this age has been made easy. It is the age when all knowledge has been released and it is available worldwide.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So Tony, oh by the way, I'm glad you are still here supporting the Baha'i Faith, but... prior to Baha'u'llah, what would you have believed to be the truth about God? Islam? Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism or Buddhism? Or any other religious belief? Was there any that you would say taught they truth about God?

That is a good question CG. I see we all have our own journey.

I had not embraced, nor was I looking for any Faith. I had failed to look for and accept any covenant given by God, prior to having the Baha'i Faith dumped in my lap. That is how I felt when I first heard about the Baha'i Faith.

I had a non memorable christain upbringing, I say that, as I do not remember anything about attending anything to do with Christianity, even though my mother and grandmother were strong in heart christains and O know I was sent to Sunday School. I guess they were both portraying virtues in living their lives and in that way were good teachers.

Why I did look at what Baha'u'llah said, is that I did think if there was a God, I saw that God would be all embracing. Thus upon finding they are all from the same source, in the Message given by Baha'u'llah, to me it was worth pursuing and embracing.

I have also.found that It was 30 years before I actually came to terms as to what it actually meant to embrace a faith in God.

Regards Tony
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Paarsurrey, do you think that Christendom is strengthened by Muhammad, or by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?

In a way I had already answered it in my post #3.

Moses,Krishna,Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Socrates are truthful prophets in Ahmadiyya Islam, but not the present form of Religions ascribed to them.

Bahaullah is not a truthful messenger/prophet of G-d, I don't consider him a Bahai even. Bahaism is more related to Abdul Baha ,Shoghi Effendi and UHJ as I understand. Bahaullah was wrong and Bahaism is also wrong. Right, please?

I don't hate any religion/no-religion and its followers, but that does not make them right in their present form. I can co-operate with any religion/no-religion and its followers in common and positive human goals happily. Right, please?

Regards
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
In a way I had already answered it in my post #3.

Moses,Krishna,Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Socrates are truthful prophets in Ahmadiyya Islam, but not the present form of Religions ascribed to them.

Sounds like your faith is practically identical to Baha'i, with a different prophet. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

i.e. Does the Ahmadiyya faith accept Jesus as Christians do, or only as Ahmadiyyas understand it?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Sounds like your faith is practically identical to Baha'i, with a different prophet. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

i.e. Does the Ahmadiyya faith accept Jesus as Christians do, or only as Ahmadiyyas understand it?

The founder of modern Christianity is Paul and not Jesus. Jesus son of Mary was a Jewish prophet/messenger all his life. He never said that he was a Christian.

Bahaullah did not follow the Law of Muhammad and the Bahais say they are not Muslim. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is/was a follower of Islam/Quran/Muhammad and his Sunnah as was Jesus the follower of Moses and his Law.
Right, please?

Regards
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sounds like your faith is practically identical to Baha'i, with a different prophet. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

i.e. Does the Ahmadiyya faith accept Jesus as Christians do, or only as Ahmadiyyas understand it?
Only as Ahmadis understand Jesus of course, but from what i’ve observed of Paarsurrey’s posts hypocrisy isn’t even considered unvirtuous in Ahmadiyya
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
But in reality the world unfolds more like a bush with different branches.

That's my point. Each branch has its place to speak to its environment and is perfectly suited for that. Another branch may sprout simultaneously to that going a different direction, reaching into other territories it's suited for better. And so on.

For one of these branch bundles to suddenly claim itself at the top of the "progressive line", comes off as rather self-centered, and to say the least presumptuous. Very egotistical, if not just basically immature, actually.

Exactly, I like you analogy here". This is the "purest" form of arrogance.

Arrogance proverbial blinds one and is proven to be a fact here.

All Scriptures give directions leading to what is called Truth, Love, Goal of Live ...

They proclaim "follow these directions and you get there", they never said "you need Bahaullah to get there"
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
IMO that alone is no problem at all; even a positive personal thought. As it it just their personal belief. All are free to believe as they like, also Bahai.

The problem starts, when they believe like in Animal Farm and claim "all are equal but Bahai is more equal" .... "all eventually need Bahai"

And we had a thread about this the last few days, and I have seen a few Bahais who explicitly said that they believe this way.
So I agree with you, that there are plenty of Bahai who think this way. Only 1 told me, he disagrees with this, but the others were not corrected.

So I gave them the advantage of the doubt like I always do, although @Vinayaka warned me by granting me 2 "optimistic" frubals I think.
And it appears that the majority of the Bahai think this way (in Holland all Bahai I met ... like 100 think this way ... they told me).


Actually you completely misunderstand. It's not "some are more equal". It's the implications if this is perfectly true.

This is not the first school of thought to propose universal love, nor is it the last.

Christianity notably die not say exactly this. They said love your neighbors as yourself, and later love your enemy (but this latter part goes back to an earlier lesson about how when you turn the other cheek, it heaps lumps of coal I think the term was). The distinction is clear, this person is your enemy, and you're letting them become aware of their sin, versus trying to retaliate and them deciding you are a mean person (because they have no self awareness). The Christian loves their enemy (but calls them an enemy) because they understand they are suffering too.

I said you're not the first to propose equal love without any standards. Well, here's an earlier one. Mohism. Ir was a contemporary of Taoism, before Taoism basically swallowed most of its teachings and adapted some of its own. Confucianism believed in conditional love with merit and worthiness, while both of these rejected conditionality. But Mohism was the opposite extreme, and no longer exists, while there are still devoted Taoists (despite borrowing the same position, Taoism always tended toward moderate approach to things).

So what would happen if you did treat everyone equally? Well actually the NT shows exactly what. And you can call this an endorsement of it, but it's clearly about the Master's decision on how to pay his workers ( "is it not my right to pay however I want?" ) and an analogy for our eternal reward, not a condonement of general treatment of people. In fact, it shows very quickly how this fails. The master pays those who worked a full day 1 coin. Then he pays those who worked a few hours less 1 coin, and so on including those that came at the last hour. Except for the last guys, most of the workers are understandably unhappy. You see, while in theory, yes we should love all people, to treat them all the same is actually not to love them (if you don't pay attention to differences, you are indifferent by the very sense of the word). But this passage is not saying treat everyone the same, because the reward actually has a different value for the different groups of workers. This is because this afterlife is a subjective place.

Suppose you run a soup kitchen, and you dole out the same amount of food to everyone. Then someone comes in and makes trouble, smashing up the place. And asks for two portions (you later find out that he's giving to a friend who can't come). Equally loving everyone as you say would result in that person getting on bowl of soup, and their tantrum treated as though it didn't happen. But far from loving as you say, you didn't really pay special attention to this guy. And he probably slowly starves while you say you treated all equally. Yeah by portioning stuff out like a bureaucrat. I use this example because it is the exact scenario in a Christian movie Same Kind of Different as Me where the homeless man in question is personally reached out to, because as a trouble maker, he needs more attention than the others. Unconditional love does not mean indifferent love, nor is it the hypocritical equality of Animal Farm. It means treating people as individuals, something you already failed to do to me by creating a strawman.

Yes, Baha'i sounds good on paper but some people need tough love to motivate them to be more active, some are happy with just being one of the regular folk and wouldn't welcome personal attention, and still others need sympathy. When you love everyone the same, you love no one.

A just man treats everyone as they deserve to be treated. And so some are punished.
A fair man treats everyone the same. And so all people are ignored.
A kind man treats everyone as they want to be treated. And so some are loved.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
It accepts all religious truth as equal.
I was just sharing my opinion on this part, that in my view this is a good thing. I meant that one religion is not superior than the other to reach the goal. They are just different ways, useful because there are different cultures, so different people, who need different guidance.

Actually you completely misunderstand. It's not "some are more equal". It's the implications if this is perfectly true.
You totally misunderstand what I meant. See above.

So what would happen if you did treat everyone equally?
I never said nor implied this. See above.

I just gave my opinion on 1 line. No strawman at all.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Thus the Baha'i Faith does not only strengthen the Message given by Jesus the Christ, it is the fulfillment of that Message. The Message given in the New Testament by Jesus Christ the Son, can not be fully and truly known without accepting Baha'u'llah the Father and the Word for this age.
Do I understand you correctly, that you believe that "Other religions are insufficient on themselves?"
(insufficient meaning not enough to reach human goal [whatever that may be])
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Christianity : Is Christendom strengthened by Bahaullah?

It is not. Two wrongs don't make "right". Right, please?

Regards
Do I understand you correctly, that you are stating here, that Christendom is wrong + Bahaullah is wrong?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Christianity : Is Christendom strengthened by Bahaullah?

It is not. Two wrongs don't make "right". Right, please?

Regards
Do you believe that religions other than your own, are sufficient on their own?
(sufficient meaning enough to reach human goal [whatever that may be])
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Those Messages, in many Names have appeared all around the world. God does not leave anyone alone and without guidance.
It's difficult enough to show how all the major religions are a progression and from one God, but if all people had guidance from that one God, then they also must have had a divine messenger to bring it. All peoples, all cultures with their very different religions, must have all come from the one God and their must be an enormous number of manifestations that were sent by God to these different people and cultures. And then.... all of them misinterpreted and added false things into that truth the messenger brought?
That is a good question CG. I see we all have our own journey.

I had not embraced, nor was I looking for any Faith. I had failed to look for and accept any covenant given by God, prior to having the Baha'i Faith dumped in my lap. That is how I felt when I first heard about the Baha'i Faith.

I had a non memorable christain upbringing, I say that, as I do not remember anything about attending anything to do with Christianity, even though my mother and grandmother were strong in heart christains and O know I was sent to Sunday School. I guess they were both portraying virtues in living their lives and in that way were good teachers.

Why I did look at what Baha'u'llah said, is that I did think if there was a God, I saw that God would be all embracing. Thus upon finding they are all from the same source, in the Message given by Baha'u'llah, to me it was worth pursuing and embracing.

I have also.found that It was 30 years before I actually came to terms as to what it actually meant to embrace a faith in God.

Regards Tony
I can certainly agree with anyone that had grown up in a Christian family and couldn't relate to it very well. I was raised Catholic but didn't ever read the Bible until the Jesus Movement of the 70"s. I understood it and believed it for a couple of years. The problem is, I had already been taught a lot about the Baha'i Faith. Unfortunately, those Baha'i teachers, and even some of the Baha'i writings contradicted, badly, the things I was learning from the Bible. And those things still exist. The two religions are very different, with very different focus.

For the salvation of the soul and to defeat Satan, and to wait for Jesus to return, then Christianity is best. If the person wants to fix a broken world and unite all people and all religions, then the Baha'i Faith is better. But I really don't see a progression. The Baha'i Faith has to make too many things "symbolic" and not literal in the NT to make Christianity fit into the Baha'i model. And Christianity, has no need for the Baha'i Faith or any other religion except Judaism. And, ironically, Christians do to Judaism what Baha'is do to all the other religions,... they say that the Jewish leaders corrupted the true message and added traditions into the religion. But still, we don't have the mysterious "original" teachings to know how and when things got corrupted.
 
Last edited:

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Do I understand you correctly, that you are stating here, that Christendom is wrong + Bahaullah is wrong?
Christianity is wrong from the time Paul faked a vision and deviated from the truthful teaching of Jesus son of Mary and mislead the sheep.
Bahaullah was wrong and so are the people who follow the religion called Bahaism. This is what I understand from my personal research. Others are welcome to differ with me, no harm. Right, please?
Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Do you believe that religions other than your own, are sufficient on their own?
(sufficient meaning enough to reach human goal [whatever that may be])
The founders of all great Religions before Muhammad were truthful in their origin.
The followers of them are to be judged by G-d.
Regards
 
Top