Baha'i and Messengers

[CG Didymus]

This is not true. According to the Bahá’í Teachings, there have been (theoretically speaking) countless Messengers and Books that have come and will continue to in the distant future. We just have records of a few. On top of this, other holy Teachers, philosophers, and sacred souls — along with various other Books — have been written about God and how to know Him. I classify this threefold: Revelation, Inspiration, and Individual Experience.

And they are all over the place as to what is the truth. Like L. Ron Hubbard. I'm sure he was inspired by something. How about Joseph Smith? Did the Angel Moroni talk with him? Were there Golden Plates. Did he wear special glasses to translate the Golden Plates? So along with what might be true Revelation, there's also fake revelation. And then there is a book like the NT that inspires peoples with the wrong beliefs about God, the Trinity. And they have all sorts of experiences. The best ones are at the Holy Roller meetings or how about the Snake Handler meetings? The guy that started the Snake Handling sect of Christianity was inspired by a verse that said we will be able to put up serpents and not be harmed. Real or not real?

 

[Trailblazer]

What attribute of Allah is plainly visible in Bahaollah? He excommunicated nearly all his relatives from Bahaism.

Wrath. You never hear that God has wrath?

“Say: There is no place of refuge for you, no asylum to which ye can flee, no one to defend or to protect you in this Day from the fury of the wrath of God and from His vehement power, unless and until ye seek the shadow of His Revelation. This, indeed, is His Revelation which hath been manifested unto you in the person of this Youth. Glorified, then, be God for so effulgent, so precious, so wondrous a vision.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 257

 

[Trailblazer]

Was Bahaullah sceptical? Did he accept that the god he thought he was communicating with might just be a delusion?
Do You?

Baha'u'llah said that we should be very skeptical.
Baha'u'llah knew that it was God communicating to Him, but we cannot know that since we were not the ones who were communicated to. That is why we should be very skeptical.

 

[CG Didymus]

Of course it has to be extended to atheists. They are human too, after all, lol. But if you're not in, you're not in. I'm out too, because I don't believe in any manifestation, or the concept of avatar I'm afraid the out side is composed of far more than just atheists. I thing the 'them' outnumber the 'us' thought so maybe there's hope after all.

That is a concern of mine about the Baha'is. It's great they found a religion they can believe in. And, since the Baha'i Faith tells them to go "teach" the Faith, I understand that they feel compelled to tell others the great news that a new spiritual messenger has been sent by God. But the Baha'i Faith also tells them to investigate the truth. How far and how deep did their investigation go?

When I first heard of the Baha'i Faith, I took what they told me as the truth. Later, I found Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists most all the people that were in a religion other than the Baha'is, didn't agree with everything they said. So, do I believe the Baha'is and just say that those other people are following wrong interpretations of their own religion? Or do I listen to those people in those other religions and learn what they believe, why they believe and what they believe about the Baha'i Faith?

Reporting back to Baha'is by way of questioning them on why they believe as they do about these other religions, doesn't always get taken very well.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wrong. The claim here is not "God does not exist".
It is "it is unreasonable to insist that god does exist, given the lack of evidence and rational argument".

Who is insisting that God exists? Not me. I just believe that God exists, given the evidence. You are free to reject the evidence and believe whatever you want to believe.

Now, you have just admitted that the claim of existence of pink unicorns in your garage is as reasonable as the claim of the existence of the Baha'i god. Neither have any supporting evidence or rational argument. And you admit that you not being able to see the unicorns is only because you are not looking with an open heart.

The claim that the God that Baha'is believe in exists has supporting evidence and it is based upon a rational argument.

But there is no evidence. You simply saying "my hat is evidence for god" does not make it so.

But there is evidence. You simply saying "Messengers are not evidence for God" does not make it so.

 

[CG Didymus]

All that overwhelming evidence is just like your God, invisible and unknowable.

"Overwhelming"? The JW at my door yesterday told me the same thing. And the day before, a Mormon missionary told me the same thing. So, it must be true. There is "overwhelming" evidence for those that believe, and none for those that don't believe.

 

[Sundance]

Stories are stories. They are not facts.

I agree somewhat. Stories may not have a real-world basis to them, but that’s not the point. They can communicate truths about the ways in which life works, offer insights into human nature, and give us guidance for living. The question that you posed to me is answered in the story itself. Adam is a human being — indeed, representative of all human beings in the Book of Genesis — and is thus prone to sin due to the willful exercise of his own free will. This is not the fault of God at all.

And they are all over the place as to what is the truth. Like L. Ron Hubbard. I'm sure he was inspired by something. How about Joseph Smith? Did the Angel Moroni talk with him? Were there Golden Plates. Did he wear special glasses to translate the Golden Plates? So along with what might be true Revelation, there's also fake revelation. And then there is a book like the NT that inspires peoples with the wrong beliefs about God, the Trinity. And they have all sorts of experiences. The best ones are at the Holy Roller meetings or how about the Snake Handler meetings? The guy that started the Snake Handling sect of Christianity was inspired by a verse that said we will be able to put up serpents and not be harmed. Real or not real?

Uhhhhh….you might wanna direct the specific questions about Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni to Mormons. I’m not too familiar with it myself.

Concerning the New Testament and the divergent interpretations there, I’m not qualified to speak to this. Christians are better equipped than I.

Snake-handling, in general, I regard as superstition.

As to L. Ron Hubbard, he’s a great science fiction writer, buuuut I’d be wary of Scientology.

 

[Trailblazer]

There might be facts ABOUT Baha'u'llah, but this doesn't suggest what he says and claims is factual.

I never said what He claimed is factual, as God claims can never be factual since they can never be proven, but that does not mean that they are not true. Logically speaking, the claims are either true or false. Baha'u'llah was either a Messenger of God with a true claim or He was a false prophet who was either deluded or a con-man. We have all been enjoined to make that determination for ourselves for we alone are responsible for our own beliefs.

You admit there are no facts for a God, but then you say you rely on what Messengers claim. What makes them correct? What facts are there that these people are authentic and we can just take their word for it?

We should never take their word for it. We should do a thorough investigation of their lives and mission. That is really not possible for the older Messengers because we do not have reliable information about them, but we do have reliable information about Baha'u'llah, which is now at our fingertips on the internet.

 

[CG Didymus]

It’s funny you ask about Hinduism, CG!

To answer your first question, the Adamic Cycle was not the first cycle of Revelation. There were many before that. The definitive list of Manifestations from this cycle, from my understanding, would include (in no particular order) Adam, Abraham, Moses, Zarathustra, Shakyamuni Buddha, Jesus Christ, and Muhammad.

You’ll notice that I left out Krishna. This segues into my answer to your question as to why Krishna (and not any other avatara) is counted among the Manifestations. To speak to Hinduism in general, we Bahá’ís do not teach that Krishna, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad Gita, Vaishnavism, or the like is representative of all of Hinduism. We recognize that what’s known as “Hinduism” is actually a vast array of local religious traditions centered around various deities and practices, so we try not to generalize here. Or, really, with any religion. No religion is a monolith.


Krishna in His original context — from what I understand — is actually as being one of a number of avataras that Bahá’ís recognize. He was not the first, nor the only one. There were (to name just two) Rama and Narasimha. The reason as to why Krishna was chosen is, perhaps, because of the wide-reaching influence of His Name (being one of Hinduism’s most popular deities), with the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita as widely familiar texts. This is entirely independent of the Bahá’í Faith.


So, when the Central Figures speak on Krishna or on Hinduism, they speak from a general awareness of it, not from anything really detailed that They knew. Shoghi Effendi encourages Bahá’ís to learn more about Hinduism (and, indeed, all religions) and in their own understandings, account for scholarly developments. Such references in the Writings are not for the purpose of saying that Bahá’ís believe that Krishna is the only avatara in Hinduism, or that Vaishnavism is the only legitimate Hindu sect, or anything of that sort, or that Krishna is somehow the “Founder of Hinduism” (whatever this means). What the inclusion of Krishna specifically is designed to say is that Hinduism in general is recognized by Bahá’ís as having survived and are given supreme legitimacy (not that other religions unmentioned are not legitimate, except for a few). All of these accusations are incorrect.

Coming from all of this, I’ll end off by saying that the criticisms leveled of how various Bahá’ís relate to Hinduism based on only a small handful of references to Hinduism in our Texts is unfair.

I'm glad you showed up here on this thread. What is "unfair" or wrong is a person representing themselves as a Baha'i giving views when there is only a handful of references to Hinduism. If they don't know, it would probably be better for them to just say so. Just like so many of the statements made here and in similar threads to Atheists don't bring Baha'is and Atheists closer... but they widen the gap. You know... why start with a discussion about God to people that don't believe there is a God.

But the damage has already been done. What can be done now? I've mentioned it a couple of times that I don't think Baha'is and Atheists are that far apart. Both believe in science. And both don't believe in a Trinitarian God or multiple Gods or in Satan and demons. Pages and pages of saying things like, "There is evidence, but you don't believe it". And the response back, "No, there isn't. A person claiming to be a messenger from God is not proof of God."

 

[CG Didymus]

Uhhhhh….you might wanna direct the specific questions about Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni to Mormons. I’m not too familiar with it myself.

Concerning the New Testament and the divergent interpretations there, I’m not qualified to speak to this. Christians are better equipped than I.

Snake-handling, in general, I regard as superstition.

As to L. Ron Hubbard, he’s a great science fiction writer, buuuut I’d be wary of Scientology.

The point was they thought they had revelations or were inspired or had personal experience but were probably wrong. So, we still can't trust some spiritual and religious teachers and the things they say. Which is why we are here... Can we believe and trust what Baha'u'llah has said?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And what is this supposed to mean?

Use facts and whatever science you have available.

This is part of my faith, which has discussed this topic in great detail, I see science can only confirm the connection.

"From the beginning of his [Man’s] formation, the mind and the spirit existed, but they were hidden and appeared only later. In the world of the womb, too, the mind and the spirit exist in the embryo but are concealed and appear only afterwards. It is even as the seed: The tree exists within it but is hidden and concealed; when the seed grows and develops, the tree appears in its fullness. In like manner, the growth and development of all beings proceeds by gradual degrees. This is the universal and divinely ordained law and the natural order." Abdul'baha.Some Answered Questions, newly revised edition, p. 228-9

The rational soul—the human spirit—did not descend into this body or subsist through it to begin with, that it should require some substance to depend upon after the constituent parts of the body have decomposed. On the contrary, the rational soul is the substance upon which the body depends. The rational soul is endowed from the beginning with individuality; it does not acquire it through the intermediary of the body. At most, what can be said is that the individuality and identity of the rational soul may be strengthened in this world, and that the soul may either progress and attain to the degrees of perfection or remain in the lowest abyss of ignorance and be veiled from and deprived of beholding the signs of God. – Some Answered Questions, newly revised edition, p. 277.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Well for a Baha'i a body cannot live in heaven, even an immortal and incorruptible body it seems.
And yes if Jesus just died and went to heaven as a spirit that gets rid of Him and His return as the same Jesus the disciples saw ascend in Acts 1.
But yes there are a lot of loose ends and certainly a lot of straight out denial of the plain things written in the Bible.
As for the virgin birth, that does explain why Jesus is call the only begotten Son of God............less to deny. Easier to accept the virgin birth and deny the eternal Sonship of Jesus and the Trinity, which so many people just mock anyway.

Since I have read Revelation, and I have read what Abdul Baha has said about a couple of chapters in Revelation, I don't believe, at the moment, that the "Christ" has come... and gone already. Too many prophecies that don't seem to me to have happened yet.

But I'm not impressed with the Baha'i interpretation that the Three Woes are Muhammad, The Bab and Baha'u'llah. The Two Witnesses are Muhammad and Ali. And that the Umayyads and Abbasids are the beasts and the dragons. I haven't gotten any good interpretation on who the Lamb is. And also, that the 666 is a prophecy about the date the Umayyads gained power. Then there is the six times that something that can be made into meaning 1260 years is made into meaning the year 1260 in the Islamic calendar, which is the same as 1844. Even though every event that it is talking about begins and ends at different times. They don't all start with the Hegira in 621 and end in 1844. But for Baha'is, that is how they interpret all those things.

But what can you do? It's just if they aren't true, then what are they? They don't seem evil enough to be the false Messiah. But they don't seem true enough to be the real Messiah.

 

[CG Didymus]

The teaching of the oneness of humanity is inclusive of all believer and non believer, east and west, rich and poor, all nations, races, religions and lifestyles.

But it's gonna take a Baha'i, maybe you, that breaks the barrier and is able to show some love to some Atheists. Too easy to just say it. You were the first Baha'i I met here on the forum that humbled himself. And that was impressive. And that was putting your spiritual beliefs into practice.

 

[CG Didymus]

Was Bahaullah sceptical? Did he accept that the god he thought he was communicating with might just be a delusion?
Do You?

Here's what I found...

When Bahá'u'lláh was imprisoned in the Síyáh-Chál, He had a series of visions which revealed to Him that He was the Promised One of all ages. In his vision, a Maid of Heaven appeared in front of Him, pointed at His head, saying: By God, This is indeed the Beloved of the universe, but ye do not understand!
​

Which is interesting... Didn't he always know he was the guy? And who knows how many "Gods" and "maids of heaven" are out there? Could this God have told him that he was the only God, but he wasn't? Then in the Bible it is "The angel of the Lord" or Michael or some archangel, although I would prefer the maid of heaven.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Special pleading again.
There is zero logic in fallacies.

And

Nobody knows if the universe had a beginning or a cause.

Are you going to keep pretending to
be using logic and know more than any
astrophysicist on earth?

You again forgot to say if you believe in
prophecy.

God knows all and He passes His knowledge to us through His Manifestations. I put my trust in His knowledge. There are many prophecies regarding Baha’u’llah in the Holy Books of all the major religions.

Yes my own logic is weak as I am just a mere mortal but God’s knowledge is perfect and I fully trust it.

 

[CG Didymus]

He may have been quite satisfied with making the whole thing up.
Thats the usual for " prophets".

And that is one critique of Muhammad. That he took apocryphal Christians books and borrowed stories from them. But then some say Christians borrowed things from the pagan religions. Then, I look at the Baha'i Faith and see a lot of similarities to Islam.

 

[Sundance]

The point was they thought they had revelations or were inspired or had personal experience but were probably wrong. So, we still can't trust some spiritual and religious teachers and the things they say. Which is why we are here... Can we believe and trust what Baha'u'llah has said?

I think there’s a misunderstanding here, CG.

The Bahá’í Writings state that “all religions, except for a few which are the outcome of human perversity, are ordained of God and are reflections of His Will and Purpose.”


Mindful of this, let’s proceed using our discernment to tell what from what.

With Mormonism, it being a (fairly normal) sect of Christianity would give it fundamental legitimacy. Joseph Smith was inspired by a level-headed search for which Christian denomination was true, right? OK. Joseph Smith (in my opinion, passes the check of Inspiration from a Revealed Religion).


As to your snake handler, obviously certain types of snakes are poisonous, handling would be deadly, sooooo using our discernment, we can deduce that this practice constitutes one of those “outcomes of human perversity” that Bahá’u’lláh spoke of. The same would apply to Scientology. Honestly, why would I even have to explain the case here? It’s self-evident.


Coming back to Bahá’u’lláh, using our discernment, is there any sort of level-headed reason not to be willing to at least examine what He teaches (even should a person choose not to embrace it), except for maybe a person’s own choice to not give it thought or their fears, preconceptions, or mistaken notions? In my opinion, no.

But I’ll leave it to you to make the decision for yourself. For future’s sake, though, I would caution you (and, indeed, everyone) to really study what it is Bahá’ís actually teach about other religions and the manners by which we actively engage with them (not just rely on superficial understandings that may or may not accurately reflect the truth of it).

 

[CG Didymus]

There are many prophecies regarding Baha’u’llah in the Holy Books of all the major religions.

And I've look at some of them and found problems with all of them. Like the Three Woes are Muhammad, The Bab and Baha'u'llah? I don't see it in the context.

 

[CG Didymus]

But I’ll leave it to you to make the decision for yourself. For future’s sake, though, I would caution you (and, indeed, everyone) to really study what it is Bahá’ís actually teach about other religions and the manners by which we actively engage with them (not just rely on superficial understandings that may or may not accurately reflect the truth of it).

Anyway the guy that started the snake handling sect of Christianity did base his inspiration from the NT.

Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
​

And nobody's going to "really" study. In one post, I was referred to a book called the Dawn Breakers by a Baha'i. When I saw how long it was, I didn't even read one page. A few quotes along with a short summary is going to have to do. You were the first and only Baha'i that went in depth with my questions about Hinduism and the Baha'i Faith. Most responses were non-answers. They didn't know and didn't seem to care to know. When I go online, I'll look at Some Answered Questions or the articles at the Baha'i.Org site.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, this provides the result of how the human brain evolved over several hundred thousand years to believe in tribal norms and concepts. This has been useful for humans as it helped in community and social cohesion and trust. This was an advantage for survival. About 85% of humans today are "wired for God" or have innate traits to adopt a religious and political framework. Believers don't know why they are motivated to admit these norms, but they do.


Like any other trait there is a range of how much it is an influence. More fervent believers will work hard to build an explanation about why they believe in concepts that are not consistent with what we observe as true about reality. Many other theists are pretty passive, and we won't see them debate religion. They adopted the religion they ere exposed to and that set of ideas exist as superfluous beliefs. They may go to church once in a while, but they won't put much effort into it. They might be asked why they believe in God and they won't have any answer for it, as they just don't think much about it.

The more fervent type of believer, which seems you might be one of them, works hard to create and maintain the religious illusion. Theists can't cite any special powers or abilities as to why they think they can confirm supernatural ideas like God exists. But they will have a set of defenses, like the bogus cause and effect claim I just responded to. There are no facts to support any decision that a God exists. There are other, subconscious reasons. The conscious mind is largely unaware because of the subconscious operations that drive belief. The conscious mind just goes along with it, and tries to find a way to reconcile the serious conflicts the ideas have with what we observe as real.


This is another example of how the min d learns to reinforce and maintain beliefs that are not consistent with reality. A believer performs rituals over and over again and in time there has been so much time and effort invested it becomes difficult for the ego to acknowledge it is invested in nonsense. It would also suggest the self has poor judgment, which is embarrassing and shameful. the emotional response is to keep performing the rituals and investing more and more. This helps the brain find more reward from this behavior and thus the brain wants more.

Tests with fMRI and PET brain scans show this thinking process bypasses the frontal lobes completely, and lights up the emotion centers and rewards centers of the believer's brain. The behavior becomes habitual and it isn't subjected to any sort of rational scrutiny.


This is ironic. Religious belief is about the self and ego. What do you think is so invested in religion if not the ego? Renaming the ego as the spirit might be a temptation, but that rain would be an example of how the brain tries to avoid what is true and feeds an illusion that allows the beliefs to remain unquestioned.


Sure, the religion demand certain conditions and assumption be made, and only THEN can the person "see" God. This is how religions coerce vulnerable people into their dogma. And once a person enters this trap they are invested and have to keep working to build the illusion that the guru promises. What choice does a believer have? If you don't see their "truth" something is wrong with you. You don't want to be wrong, do you? No. You will end up seeing what they tell you to see.

So billions of people have been fooled, coerced, are suffering from mental illusions and are trapped. All about self and ego? if that’s what you believe then you should continue following what you believe is true.

I was once in your space so I understand your stance. I had the exact same views of God and religion that it was all nonsense. Eventually I discovered I was wrong only because I accidentally came across Baha’u’llah, so you must put everything you come across to the test and unless you feel it meets your test, you should continue to reject it. I did that so I agree you should continue to press as hard as possible to ensure that you are not being conned or fooled or coerced like you think we have been.