Can we have different beliefs and still have peace.

[loverofhumanity]

In what sense?

The Baha'i Faith is dated from 1844 when a man called by the title of the Bab, meaning gate, declared Himself to be the first of two Manifestations of God Who were to appear. A role similar to John the Baptist except He was a Prophet in His own right.

Baha'u'llah later announced in Baghdad in 1863 that He was the Promised One foretold in the scriptures of all Faiths so we accept the Bab as part of our Faith.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I question it for me since I can't see the logic in it. I guess I feel if someone was the claim jesus is part of their faith, they should accept how the followers and their interpretation of doctrine see it rather than through the eyes of Bahaullah. Although their belief, so far I understand it, I cant make sense of it logically. But, then, how much can you really ask before the conversation is cut short. /shrugs/

Hi Carlita. Did I cut you short? If I did I never meant to. I apologise if that happened. Anytime I'm here and love talking to you but I'm using the app on my iPad and sometimes it doesn't show all replies for some reason so if I missed some post of yours I sincerely humbly apologise.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi Carlita. Did I cut you short? If I did I never meant to. I apologise if that happened. Anytime I'm here and love talking to you but I'm using the app on my iPad and sometimes it doesn't show all replies for some reason so if I missed some post of yours I sincerely humbly apologise.

I wasn't directing it towards you. I have many questions I sincerely want to understand but people (honestly, people in general) do cut conversations short. It's a pet peeve off-line sense it's already hard to understand people in normal English; so, it takes awhile to 'get it' on deeper topics I'm interested in.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Baha'u'llah later announced in Baghdad in 1863 that He was the Promised One foretold in the scriptures of all Faiths so we accept the Bab as part of our Faith.

No, the promised one was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas. He said so.
The problem is that no one comes with the Seal from the Almighty. Every one just saunters in, one after the other, and makes the same announcement.

21st century (Claiming to be returned Jesus):
Apollo Quiboloy (1950–) is the founder and leader of a Philippines-based Restorationist church, the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, The Name Above Every Name, Inc. He has made claims that he is the "Appointed Son of God.".
Alan John Miller (1962–), more commonly known as A.J. Miller, a former Jehovah's itness elder and current leader of the Australia-based Divine Truth movement. Miller claims to be Jesus Christ reincarnated with others in the 20th century to spread messages that he calls the "Divine Truth." He delivers these messages in seminars and various forms of media along with his current partner Mary Suzanne Luck, who identifies herself as the returned Mary Magdalene.
David Shayler (1965–) was a former MI5 agent and whistleblower who, in the summer of 2007, proclaimed himself to be the Messiah. He has released a series of videos on YouTube claiming to be Jesus, although he has not built up any noticeable following since his claims.
Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez (1990–). In November 2011, he fired nine shots with an Romanian Cugir SA semi-automatic rifle at the White House in Washington D.C., believing himself to be Jesus Christ sent to kill U.S. President Barack Obama, whom he believed to be the antichrist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus#21st_century

21st century (Claiming to be Mahdi):
Dia Abdul Zahra Kadim (1970 – January 2007), a Shia Iraqi former leader of Soldiers of Heaven, claimed to be the Mahdi. According to seminary expert, Mehdi Ghafari, more than 3,000 Mahdi claimants were in prison in Iran in 2012.[11]
Hazrat Mohammad Shakeel, native of Darbhanga, Bihar, India. His claim is as good as that of anyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mahdi_claimants#Twenty_First_century

Note: I am not including the names of Hindu men or women who have claimed or are believed to be God/Goddess in 21st Century because the list is very long.

 

[arthra]

No, the promised one was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas. He said so.
The problem is that no one comes with the Seal from Almighty. Every one just saunters in, one after the other, and makes the same announcement.

It's of course more than just an announcement... It's the life and behavior along with the intentions that w can investigate .... Here a history and testimony can be investigated.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Can we have different beliefs and still have peace? Man will never find peace without God. And as long as there are different beliefs it will be hard for God to bring peace.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, the promised one was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas. He said so.
The problem is that no one comes with the Seal from the Almighty. Every one just saunters in, one after the other, and makes the same announcement.

21st century (Claiming to be returned Jesus):
Apollo Quiboloy (1950–) is the founder and leader of a Philippines-based Restorationist church, the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, The Name Above Every Name, Inc. He has made claims that he is the "Appointed Son of God.".
Alan John Miller (1962–), more commonly known as A.J. Miller, a former Jehovah's itness elder and current leader of the Australia-based Divine Truth movement. Miller claims to be Jesus Christ reincarnated with others in the 20th century to spread messages that he calls the "Divine Truth." He delivers these messages in seminars and various forms of media along with his current partner Mary Suzanne Luck, who identifies herself as the returned Mary Magdalene.
David Shayler (1965–) was a former MI5 agent and whistleblower who, in the summer of 2007, proclaimed himself to be the Messiah. He has released a series of videos on YouTube claiming to be Jesus, although he has not built up any noticeable following since his claims.
Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez (1990–). In November 2011, he fired nine shots with an Romanian Cugir SA semi-automatic rifle at the White House in Washington D.C., believing himself to be Jesus Christ sent to kill U.S. President Barack Obama, whom he believed to be the antichrist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus#21st_century

21st century (Claiming to be Mahdi):
Dia Abdul Zahra Kadim (1970 – January 2007), a Shia Iraqi former leader of Soldiers of Heaven, claimed to be the Mahdi. According to seminary expert, Mehdi Ghafari, more than 3,000 Mahdi claimants were in prison in Iran in 2012.[11]
Mohammad Shakeel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mahdi_claimants#Twenty_First_century

Note: I am not including the names of Hindu men or women who have claimed or are believed to be God/Goddess in 21st Century because the list is very long.

For me it's all about humanity and how we can come together to create a peaceful and prosperous world.

Any movement which spreads love for all humanity is precious and much needed in today's confrontational world. We need to hold dear and value what we have in common for the sake of unity.

So greetings to you all from the Baha'is.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Can we have different beliefs and still have peace? Man will never find peace without God. And as long as there are different beliefs it will be hard for God to bring peace.

What if we all accepted that we believed in the same God? There must be at least 50/50 chance for peace then?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I question it for me since I can't see the logic in it. I guess I feel if someone was the claim jesus is part of their faith, they should accept how the followers and their interpretation of doctrine see it rather than through the eyes of Bahaullah. Although their belief, so far I understand it, I cant make sense of it logically. But, then, how much can you really ask before the conversation is cut short. /shrugs/

It's ultimately one belief against another. Baha'is believe that the founders of what loverofhumanity terms the 'major Faiths' (or similar) were Manifestations of God and that at least some of those calling themselves their followers remained true to their teachings, but that others went astray in becoming attached to teachings that were only ever meant for a particular time, place and society. Muslims believe similar (although, we also believe that some of those claiming to be followers of the Prophets, as we term them, also corrupted their holy books and teachings, and that Muhammad (pbuh) was the last Prophet (aka Manifestation of God)). I am with the Baha'is on the basic idea here (including wrt some of the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh), I might add, which is one way in which I deviate from mainstream Islaamic belief), but don't accept their claim that Baha'u'llah and his teachings supersede those of Muhammad (pbuh). If you believe someone is a Manifestation of God (i.e. of a higher station than those who are not), then I can see how you might think their word is more important than the word of your average Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc.

Insofar as you don't accept Baha'u'llah as a Manifestation of God (at least, you don't accept that he is of a necessarily higher station in spiritual matters than other people, right?), then of course you are not going to take his word over the word of the followers of those faiths whose founders Baha'is claim as part of their tradition. From your perspective, as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong!), Baha'u'llah was just a (good) bloke, brought up within a faith different from Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc., so how could he possibly have a better understanding of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. than Hindus, Buddhists, Christians? From your perspective, I can see how that just doesn't compute.

Does that help at all?

 

[loverofhumanity]

It's ultimately one belief against another. Baha'is believe that the founders of what loverofhumanity terms the 'major Faiths' (or similar) were Manifestations of God and that at least some of those calling themselves their followers remained true to their teachings, but that others went astray in becoming attached to teachings that were only ever meant for a particular time, place and society. Muslims believe similar (although, we also believe that some of those claiming to be followers of the Prophets, as we term them, also corrupted their holy books and teachings, and that Muhammad (pbuh) was the last Prophet (aka Manifestation of God)). I am with the Baha'is on the basic idea here (including wrt some of the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh), I might add, which is one way in which I deviate from mainstream Islaamic belief), but don't accept their claim that Baha'u'llah and his teachings supersede those of Muhammad (pbuh). If you believe someone is a Manifestation of God (i.e. of a higher station than those who are not), then I can see how you might think their word is more important than the word of your average Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc.

Insofar as you don't accept Baha'u'llah as a Manifestation of God (at least, you don't accept that he is of a necessarily higher station in spiritual matters than other people, right?), then of course you are not going to take his word over the word of the followers of those faiths whose founders Baha'is claim as part of their tradition. From your perspective, as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong!), Baha'u'llah was just a (good) bloke, brought up within a faith different from Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc., so how could he possibly have a better understanding of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. than Hindus, Buddhists, Christians? From your perspective, I can see how that just doesn't compute.

Does that help at all?

It's quite insightful what you say.

For instance if a person understood that it was a Prophet speaking Who had innate knowledge then they would be more inclined to accept He would know about all religions but if people just viewed Him as person of goodwill then they wouldn't attach much importance to His Words.

Our understanding of corruption of the texts is that the meanings have been changed not that the actual words were effaced as the Holy Books are widely distributed.

Say for instance there are many prophecies in the Bible regarding Muhammad but the interpretations have twisted the meanings to mean something entirely different.

People unfortunately have been so indoctrinated and brainwashed that they can't think for themselves and all have the same imitated interpretation that nowhere is Muhammad mentioned in the Bible and so they can't even allow for the possibility.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The Baha'i Faith is dated from 1844 when a man called by the title of the Bab, meaning gate, declared Himself to be the first of two Manifestations of God Who were to appear. A role similar to John the Baptist except He was a Prophet in His own right.

Baha'u'llah later announced in Baghdad in 1863 that He was the Promised One foretold in the scriptures of all Faiths so we accept the Bab as part of our Faith.

Right, that is if you claim 'Ali Muhammad Shirazi (aka the Bab), as part of your faith. But my argument is that the Babi Faith was a distinct faith, even if Baha'u'llah clearly accepted the Bab's claims and proclaimed himself to be the Promised One that the Bab had alluded to (as you are no doubt aware, he was not the only one to make this claim, just the most successful one), and it is clear that Baha'u'llah was influenced by the Bab and his teachings. Of course, all faiths were arguably influenced by their surrounding cultural milieu. So in that sense it is true that the Baha'i Faith had its origins in Iran.

However, insofar as the Baha'i Faith is a distinct faith from the Babi Faith, which only really began to emerge in its current form with Baha'u'llah, the Baha'i Faith had its beginnings in Baghdad, Sulaymaniyah (Iraqi Kurdistan) and the Ottoman Empire (Constantinople, Adrianople, Acre), the key places where Baha'u'llah spent his life. Hence my earlier statement. i.e., I guess, we are both right!

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It's quite insightful what you say.

For instance if a person understood that it was a Prophet speaking Who had innate knowledge then they would be more inclined to accept He would know about all religions but if people just viewed Him as person of goodwill then they wouldn't attach much importance to His Words.

Our understanding of corruption of the texts is that the meanings have been changed not that the actual words were effaced as the Holy Books are widely distributed.

Say for instance there are many prophecies in the Bible regarding Muhammad but the interpretations have twisted the meanings to mean something entirely different.

People unfortunately have been so indoctrinated and brainwashed that they can't think for themselves and all have the same imitated interpretation that nowhere is Muhammad mentioned in the Bible and so they can't even allow for the possibility.

Yes, although I go further than this in saying that all holy books have been corrupted (not just by interpretation, but by changes to their contents) . I also don't accept that Muhammad (pbuh) was prophesied in the Bible. I'm generally pretty sceptical of claims about prophecies. Two further ways in which I deviate from mainstream Islaam!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Interesting. Surprisingly, I understand it when you compare it to the Islamic faith. Maybe it's because I don't see any of the founders as more than Prophet in their own rights and definitions of such.

It's ultimately one belief against another.

That's probably why the conflict between the differing beliefs.

Baha'is believe that the founders of what loverofhumanity terms the 'major Faiths' (or similar) were Manifestations of God and that at least some of those calling themselves their followers remained true to their teachings, but that others went astray in becoming attached to teachings that were only ever meant for a particular time, place and society.

Hm. Yeah, I'd disagree with the Bahai faith on that. Only because it puts Bahaullauh at a higher standard and authority to see and define a faith that he (as I see as a Prophet rather than manifestation of god) I feel he has no right-just as any other person not of that said faith-to define another person's faith as right or wrong.

Muslims believe similar (although, we also believe that some of those claiming to be followers of the Prophets, as we term them, also corrupted their holy books and teachings, and that Muhammad (pbuh) was the last Prophet (aka Manifestation of God)).

I can see that. I'm more on the line of Muslim faith only because the "manifestation of god" is throwing me off. It's telling a Christian "hey, Bahuallauh is the manifestation of your god and you are seeing things incorrectly based on Baha' teachings. We respect you but say you are seeing things incorrectly."

In my perspective, that's like, as I commented with Loverofhumanity, someone coming into my home, befriending my family, and find connection with my family, then calling himself part of my family without my family giving him the say he is. It's also even more rude not only to claim yourself connected to my family, but have someone else dictate what family means to my family without asking us personally.

Even though Islam sees other Abrahamic faiths as currupted, at least you respect the founder at least as a prophet of god but insomuch that he is inline with Muhammad (or aka Bahullah/manifestation of god). In Islam, from my point of view, it sounds like a difference of opinion. From a Bahai view, in my opinion, it goes beyond that; and, I find that rude.

If you believe someone is a Manifestation of God (i.e. of a higher station than those who are not), then I can see how you might think their word is more important than the word of your average Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc.

I totally disagree with that position. However, I guess I understand it more.

From your perspective, as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong!), Baha'u'llah was just a (good) bloke, brought up within a faith different from Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc., so how could he possibly have a better understanding of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. than Hindus, Buddhists, Christians? From your perspective, I can see how that just doesn't compute.

I'd see Bahaullauh, Jesus, The Buddha, Muhammad, John Smith, etc as prophets (except for The Buddha) and founders of their given faith. I don't see them as an authoritative to tell anyone about their own faith they do not, themselves, uphold.

For example, many people respect me as a human, but I would not expect anyone to be an authoritative person to speak on behalf of a Muslim just because someone I believe in says I can. I have to respect that because a Muslim does not consider me Muslim, regardless of what I believe and who told me, respecting their space and belief means not claiming myself as part of them when they personally say otherwise.

I don't have that heirarchy point of view that one person is higher than anyone else. I find that very oppressive to people who genuinely should have their own say of their own religion with respect that no other religion is part of their own without the believers say.

It's like the Deaf example I gave @loverofhumanity. I can go to Deaf events all I want, communicate, and even know ASL fluently, but the very fact I am not Deaf, even if Joe Smoe (hearing) says I am part of their community, I can take Joe Smoe's consideration, but as long as I am not Deaf, I am not part of their community. As long as X person is Bahai and not Muslim (according to Muslim standards) I see it very disrespectful to claim a Muslim standing unless Muslims agree to it.

But I guess there are different ways to respect people. If others don't take offense to it, then I guess it's okay. I know many religions that would take offense to it. I guess that's how I define respect and peace among different beliefs.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Right, that is if you claim 'Ali Muhammad Shirazi (aka the Bab), as part of your faith. But my argument is that the Babi Faith was a distinct faith, even if Baha'u'llah clearly accepted the Bab's claims and proclaimed himself to be the Promised One that the Bab had alluded to (as you are no doubt aware, he was not the only one to make this claim, just the most successful one), and it is clear that Baha'u'llah was influenced by the Bab and his teachings. Of course, all faiths were arguably influenced by their surrounding cultural milieu. So in that sense it is true that the Baha'i Faith had its origins in Iran.

However, insofar as the Baha'i Faith is a distinct faith from the Babi Faith, which only really began to emerge in its current form with Baha'u'llah, the Baha'i Faith had its beginnings in Baghdad, Sulaymaniyah (Iraqi Kurdistan) and the Ottoman Empire (Constantinople, Adrianople, Acre), the key places where Baha'u'llah spent his life. Hence my earlier statement. i.e., I guess, we are both right!

For me personally it doesn't matter if people think differently or believe differently as long as we all get along and have common respect for each other.

I always believe there's good and not so good in every religion, race and culture but we should focus on what is good and what we have in common and built trust and friendship on that.

The Quran is one of my most valued treasures.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, although I go further than this in saying that all holy books have been corrupted (not just by interpretation, but by changes to their contents) . I also don't accept that Muhammad (pbuh) was prophesied in the Bible. I'm generally pretty sceptical of claims about prophecies. Two further ways in which I deviate from mainstream Islaam!

It's interesting that you said you believe Holy Books have had their contents corrupted. What kind of contents?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

For example, many people respect me as a human, but I would not expect anyone to be an authoritative person to speak on behalf of a Muslim just because someone I believe in says I can. I have to respect that because a Muslim does not consider me Muslim, regardless of what I believe and who told me, respecting their space and belief means not claiming myself as part of them when they personally say otherwise.

Whilst I can certainly see where you are coming from on this, and I do to an extent agree, I also differ to a degree. If we take the above example you give, I identify as a Muslim and some of my beliefs (and especially practices) are pretty mainstream, yet I have some pretty heterodox beliefs too. Many (most?) other Muslims take major issue with my more heterodox beliefs (some go so far as to say I am not a Muslim, others stop at showing massive disapproval). By your argument above, even though I believe I am a Muslim (and have good reasons for thinking so, and identify and practice as such), because the majority of Muslims tend to think otherwise when I express my more heterodox views, I do not have the right to claim to be a Muslim. Or that is what you seem to be saying. Where does this stop? Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, this would appear to only support orthodox or majority expressions of a particular faith, and to deny the diversity within them where the majority of a faith's adherents reject the less orthodox, minority expressions as not being part of that faith. But perhaps I have you wrong here?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It's interesting that you said you believe Holy Books have had their contents corrupted. What kind of contents?

Depends on the holy book in question, and to an extent its age. With the passage of time, I believe that at least some of the original teachings brought by those whose teachings are enshrined in those books have been changed or mixed with other teachings that they did not bring, but are passed off as theirs (so, corrupted in that sense). Or that things are written down that did not in actuality happen. An example - the idea that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified. Is that clearer?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Whilst I can certainly see where you are coming from on this, and I do to an extent agree, I also differ to a degree. If we take the above example you give, I identify as a Muslim and some of my beliefs (and especially practices) are pretty mainstream, yet I have some pretty heterodox beliefs too. Many (most?) other Muslims take major issue with my more heterodox beliefs (some go so far as to say I am not a Muslim, others stop at showing massive disapproval). By your argument above, even though I believe I am a Muslim (and have good reasons for thinking so, and identify and practice as such), because the majority of Muslims tend to think otherwise when I express my more heterodox views, I do not have the right to claim to be a Muslim. Or that is what you seem to be saying. Where does this stop? Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, this would appear to only support orthodox or majority expressions of a particular faith, and to deny the diversity within them where the majority of a faith's adherents reject the less orthodox, minority expressions as not being part of that faith. But perhaps I have you wrong here?

Hmm. I see where youre coming from. I personally would say if you identify as Muslim and you go by Muslim practices (are in communion with other Muslims) then if Joe tells me I am part of your faith but you, as a Muslim disagrees (as wellnas your teachings), Id side with you as a Muslim not Joe unless he identifies as Muslim.

Im sure Islam has core beliefs that are the foundations of who a Muslim is within its diversity. Saying that Muhammad is connected to Bahai kind of makes me think if that is true, where does Bah' stand in the Muslim faith. If a prophet, then that alone is in discord with Bahai. Unless the core tenants of Islam agree that Bah' is a manefestation of god (like christ is a manefestation of god), I dont see how the two match.

Its like saying Im in love with my crush but she doesnt love me backm Yet, we are both friends. She sees me as a friend but I see her as a girlfriend. I have a right to my beliefs since love is not strictly defined. However, if she doesnt agree, do I have the right to call her someone she is not?

All christian denomi says christ has some divinity regardless how its defined. They dont accept anyone with the same divinity as god (as god or is god depending on denomni) Bah' included. Its a core belief not mainstream. How doesna bahai's overlook that fact for the words of Bahullah unless they believe in different gods?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Hmm. I see where youre coming from. I personally would say if you identify as Muslim and you go by Muslim practices (are in communion with other Muslims) then if Joe tells me I am part of your faith but you, as a Muslim disagrees (as wellnas your teachings), Id side with you as a Muslim not Joe unless he identifies as Muslim.

Im sure Islam has core beliefs that are the foundations of who a Muslim is within its diversity. Saying that Muhammad is connected to Bahai kind of makes me think if that is true, where does Bah' stand in the Muslim faith. If a prophet, then that alone is in discord with Bahai. Unless the core tenants of Islam agree that Bah' is a manefestation of god (like christ is a manefestation of god), I dont see how the two match.

Its like saying Im in love with my crush but she doesnt love me backm Yet, we are both friends. She sees me as a friend but I see her as a girlfriend. I have a right to my beliefs since love is not strictly defined. However, if she doesnt agree, do I have the right to call her someone she is not?

All christian denomi says christ has some divinity regardless how its defined. They dont accept anyone with the same divinity as god (as god or is god depending on denomni) Bah' included. Its a core belief not mainstream. How doesna bahai's overlook that fact for the words of Bahullah unless they believe in different gods?

I do essentially agree with what you say above, Carlita (in relation to loverofhumanity's view of other faiths). I'll leave loverofhumanity to continue their defence of their view (forgive me, I can't remember whether you identify as a 'he' or a 'she', loverofhumanity).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I do essentially agree with what you say above, Carlita (in relation to loverofhumanity's view of other faiths). I'll leave loverofhumanity to continue their defence of their view (forgive me, I can't remember whether you identify as a 'he' or a 'she', loverofhumanity).

I think @loverofhumanity is a male if Im not mistaken. Its probably one of those faiths Id never understand. Christianity I understand spiritually. Once you say a man born over 2,000 years ago who walked on water saved people in 2016 by literallly dying on the cross without the effort or action of the believer logically makes me scratch my head.

But then some people scratch their head when I say my deceased grandmother saved me from being hit hy a car. So all in perspective, I guess.