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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Victor said:What are some of the major dogmas that Bahai's reject from Christians, Jews, and Muslims?
Two things it has in common with UU beliefs.jacquie4000 said:- Religion should be in harmony with science and reason.
- It is the responsibility of the individual to search independently for truth.
Maize said:Two things it has in common with UU beliefs.
Off topic, I know, but I come across commonalities so rarely with other religions that I like to point them out when I do.
lunamoth said:Bahaism was founded by Mirza Hoseyn Ali Nuri who is also known as Baha Ullah. Baha Ullah claimed that he was a divine manifestation calling himself The Bab (the gate to divine truth).
Not sure that particular line is accurate. The Bab and Baha'u'llah were two different people.
Victor said:So the priesthood is seen as unfair and prejudice?
Booko said:[/color]It's tough to know where to start with that, as I usually think of it more like "here's what we have in common" and "we believe something like that."
The idea of "progressive revelation" may or may not be one of those.
(Please, members of the religions Victor mentioned, if you see me posting something incorrect, please correct me, ok?)
The essential idea behind "progressive revelation" is that God sends us prophets from time to time because:
1. Humanity is ready for some new lessons
2. Uh...we got a few things wrong
3. Some directives that made sense before no longer apply.
In the case of Islam, Muhammad is believed to be the Seal of the Prophets, and the common understanding of this title is: No more prophets, period. Where our belief is common with Muslims is that there will be no more "minor" prophets.
In the case of Christianity, Jesus is regarded as the last prophet, though He will Return again. We agree about the Return, but look beyond that to God continuing revealing Himself to us through His prophets.
In the case of Judaism, they await the Messiah, but there is (to my knowledge) no overarching idea that God will always keep sending us prophets, even after the Messiah.
We believe that God will never leave any of us in darkness, ever, that humanity is still "growing up" (coming out of turbulent adolescence and into young adulthood now, actually), and will continue to need lessons as long as we have physical existence.
Booko said:Oh, I don't think so. Just human is all.
I know a lot of things get laid at the door of Christianity as if it were the working of insane evil plotters or some such thing.
But I don't see it that way at all. I think that earnest people in the history of the Church have had to struggle with difficult issues and find a way to keep unity in the Church, and did the best they could. (Oh, I just thought of a new thread...)
And in our turn, we'll do the same.
Until the next prophet comes to straighten out a few things we could've done better.
Victor said:This sounds very similar to LDS in regards to the 3 points you noted and progressive revelation.
Next question:
In the LDS structure, there is a way to find truth and dogma (12 apostles, Prophet). Does such a thing exist in Bahai. If not, how does one know when God has brought a new lesson?
Victor said:Coolio...but the priesthood is certainly something you guys aren't fond of right?
Booko said:I've never heard any Baha'i say anything like that.
We don't have a priesthood ourselves. But the fact that you have is no issue with us.
It not a normal thing, when a bunch of Baha'is are talking amongst themselves, to make comments that are critical of other religions. At least not that I've seen. We try to stay focused on the job we've been given.
Baha'is don't normally see "different" as being "wrong."
For myself, there are often very good reasons for why other religions do what they do, and I don't assume I will know what those reasons are, or even understand them if I do know about them.
Booko said:Hm...you've a better eye than I do, lunamoth.
Yeah, the title of "the Bab" was given to Siyyid Ali Muhammad, who's a Prophet Herald figure that came before Baha'u'llah.
The source does seem to have them smushed in together as one person.
Oh sorry, I hope I didnt give you the impression that is where I was taking the similarity. I just used LDS because its something Im more familiar with.Booko said:There are several areas of remarkable similarity between Baha'i and LDS beliefs, despite them obviously beginning in completely separate areas of the world.
I don't think any scholar in his right mind could argue that Baha'u'llah, a Persian exile and prisoner in Akka, and Joseph Smith, an American, could've swapped ideas with each other. It's not like there was email then.
I summarized it in 3 points (correct me if Im wrong):Booko said:We look first to the Writings of the Bab, Baha'u'llah, and Abdu'l-Baha. The only way something can be considered properly a part of Baha'i Writings is if we have the original and the handwriting is verified and it was written by one of these three Figures. Anything else is not part of the Writings.
In the Writings, there is specific guidance as to who (or what) has the authority to interpret the Writings should any question arise. The first such person was Abdu'l-Baha (son of Baha'u'llah), then Shoghi Effendi Abbas, and now the elected body known as the Universal House of Justice.
Interpretative decisions made by Shoghi Effendi and the "House" are binding. Though if you read them (you can find them online) you'd see they deal with mundane questions about application of, say, laws regarding marriage, burial, etc. and not wider theological points like "the nature of God."
As individuals, one of our principles is "individual investigation of the truth" which means, you have to delve into the Writings yourself and understand as best you can. Oh, that doesn't mean we don't exchange ideas and knowledge -- we do, but there is no *individual* whose opinion can be contrued to be "the correct one."
Even a member of the Universal House of Justice can't claim that sort of authority. He just serves the Institution -- on his own, he's no more "special" than any other Baha'i.
How will we know when God brings a new lesson? As Baha'is, we know one way to know that someone *isn't* a prophet:
CLXVI. Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him...Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 344)
It hasn't been a thousand years yet...over 800 to go. And that last sentence leaves out any funny business with the meaning.
As for how to generally recognize a prophet as being a real one, there are many things to look at, but here's some:
- a life of sacrifice in service to humanity
- an upright character
- kindness and justice
- praises the prophets who came before
- knowledge that cannot be explained by mere education
And really, I find Christ's guidance very helpful: The sheep know their Master's voice.
(Erm...which in no way should be read to mean that if someone hasn't heard what I have, they're a goat. That's way above my pay grade anyway.)
Also, historically, Prophets seem to turn up in the darkest times and places, so look there. This only makes sense, if you think on it a bit: if everything was hunky-dory, why would God need to send us guidance? You send the Divine Physician where the disease is the worst.