Contradicting "messengers"

[Truthseeker]

Yeah, um … no.

I’m all for knowing the different ways Krishna is presented, and most importantly, where.

The Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahābhārata, 18 chapters of it, not a separate work. This is one of the things about Baha’i belief that pisses off Hindus … changing what is Hindu canon. Even if it were transmitted orally and all written down years later one must understand the extreme care taken in orally transmitting scriptures. The Vedas even today can be recited from memory without deviation. There are rules within Sanskrit for the memorization. Children begin to learn it at an early age.

The only reason I respond to the comments of Baha’is is not to change their minds or beliefs but hopefully to let non-Hindus know how wrong the Baha’i view of Hinduism is.

That's fine. I am not trying to change your mind either. I don't undestand one comment though. I said that the Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata. Why do you think I said something else?

 

[CG Didymus]

Why not? Krishna is thought to have lived nearly five thousand years ago. There is no objective evidence that He existed as a person let alone writings that reflect word for word what He taught. So the Baha'i view that Krishna is a Manifestation of God is a belief. It is not something that can be proven or established, anymore than the Hindu belief that Krishna was an Avatar of Vishnu can be proven. We are all entitled to our beliefs.

Again, was Krishna a real, historical person. What can we say? Maybe? Were the things written about him true and accurate? I'd go with probably not, that it was myth and legend. So, why teach that he was a manifestation as if we know?

Because Baha'u'llah confirmed it? Did he? If not, then was Krishna and Hinduism first acknowledged as being true by anyone in the Baha'i Faith? Since Hinduism was already a religion prior to Krishna, who was the manifestation that started it? Then, how did Krishna change it? What new social teachings did he bring and what spiritual teachings did he confirm that were already part of Hinduism? Do we know?

I'm okay with Hinduism being what it is. Maybe it's true, maybe not. Maybe it has some great spiritual truths mixed in with mythical stories. That doesn't bother me. It doesn't have to be that at one time it was perfect and true and then got corrupted. If it was made up by spiritual people that had visions and ideas of what they thought was true, and those ideas evolved over time, I'm alright with that. I don't need it to be from The One God. I'm okay with it being from people who wrote about the Gods and or God.

With the Baha'i Faith it has to have been true and revealed by a manifestation... then corrupted. Again, maybe, maybe not. But I don't think it was. So, where does that leave me? Doubting the Baha'i Faith as being true, even though some of the things it teaches are true.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I don't know if reincarnation is real or not, but TB does not understand the Hindu concept of reincarnation. In theory, I think it makes a lot of sense. It is the soul that is learning things. It is being put into a different human body at different times and places and gets to experience life from a different perspective. One time the man, one time the woman... One time the conqueror, one time the conquered. One time rich, one time poor... etc.

With this one life and one chance, it doesn't give people an equal opportunity in life and to learn what it would be like to be someone else. Baha'is aren't as bad as born-again Christians, who believe if a person doesn't get it right in their one chance at life and accept Jesus, then they will be sent to hell. At least Baha'is say that the soul continues to progress in other worlds of God.

Oh, and she says that living the same day over and over would not be funny? She needs to watch the movie. Yes, it is hell for Bill Murray. But it was for his own good and got him to change. Just like a soul that reincarnated into different human bodies would learn through experience what it is like to be different people in different situations.

I agree it makes more sense in theory... Catholic purgatory has a similar function.

 

[CG Didymus]

Sounds like a quandary you face CG.

I'm just throwing out questions and pointing out problem areas with the claims put out there by the Baha'is. I don't see it as a "quandary" that I'm facing. One question I ask over and over again is why do Baha'is make Adam a manifestation? Either Baha'is have an answer or they ignore the question. Without a reasonable answer I just take it that Baha'is don't know.

 

[CG Didymus]

I agree it makes more sense in theory... Catholic purgatory has a similar function.

Yes, purgatory was a nice addition. It gave a place to go for the not-so-bad but the not-good-enough-to-go-to-heaven people. Which is probably most people.

Reincarnation gave people hope that if they do good, they will move on up the spiritual ladder and get reborn into a better situation, and eventually break the cycle of being reborn.

Then the Baha'is have it where the person ends up in some level of a spiritual world that is determined by how good they were in their one chance on Earth as a human. But one chance? There's just so many variables that I don't see how it is even possibly fair to all people. But then again, does it have to be real? The purpose could be just to get people to do good... thinking that by doing good, they'll be better off in that next spiritual life. Which is kind of the same thing that reincarnation does. Do good and get into a better position in the next life.

Then there's the born-again Christian one, believe in Jesus and you'll be admitted into heaven. Do good things and there will be rewards too. But the best is whoever came up with the 70 virgins in the next life for anyone willing to die for their beliefs. Amazing what religions will do to get people to believe and follow them... and obey everything they say.

 

[Trailblazer]

One question I ask over and over again is why do Baha'is make Adam a manifestation? Either Baha'is have an answer or they ignore the question. Without a reasonable answer I just take it that Baha'is don't know.

Baha'is do not "make" Adam a Manifestation. We "believe" that He was a Manifestation because it is in the Writings of Baha'u'llah that Adam was a Prophet.

“For even as He regarded Himself to be the “First of the Prophets”—that is Adam—in like manner, the “Seal of the Prophets” is also applicable unto that Divine Beauty. It is admittedly obvious that being the “First of the Prophets,” He likewise is their “Seal.””
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 162

“Consider; He hath declared Knowledge to consist of twenty and seven letters, and regarded all the Prophets, from Adam even unto the “Seal,” as Expounders of only two letters thereof and of having been sent down with these two letters.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 243-244

Question: How many kinds of divine Prophets are there?

Answer: There are three kinds of divine Prophets. One kind are the universal Manifestations, which are even as the sun. Through Their advent the world of existence is renewed, a new cycle is inaugurated, a new religion is revealed, souls are quickened to a new life, and East and West are flooded with light. These Souls are the universal Manifestations of God and have been sent forth to the entire world and the generality of mankind.

Another kind of Prophets are followers and promulgators, not leaders and law-givers, but they are nonetheless the recipients of the hidden inspirations of God. Yet another kind are Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality. But the universal Manifestations are all-encompassing: They are like the root, and all others are as the branches; they are like the sun, and all others are as the moon and the stars.

Twelve table talks given by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in ‘Akká
The Three Kinds of Prophets

Baha'is believe that Adam was a universal Manifestation of God who founded a new religious cycle.

“We are in the cycle which began with Adam, and its supreme Manifestation is Bahá’u’lláh. “
Some Answered Questions, p. 161

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm just throwing out questions and pointing out problem areas with the claims put out there by the Baha'is. I don't see it as a "quandary" that I'm facing. One question I ask over and over again is why do Baha'is make Adam a manifestation? Either Baha'is have an answer or they ignore the question. Without a reasonable answer I just take it that Baha'is don't know.

Why not have a look CG?

Adam in the Quran

"They said, “Praise be to Thee! We have no knowledge but what Thou hast given us to know. Thou! Thou art the Knowing, the Wise.”

He said, “O Adam, inform them of their names.” And when he had informed them of their names, He said, “Did I not say to you that I know the hidden things of the Heavens and of the Earth, and that I know what ye bring to light, and what ye hide?” – Qur’an 2:19, 30-31.

Abdul'baha said in Some Answered Questions.

"...We are in the cycle which began with Adam and whose universal Manifestation is Baha’u’llah. – pp. 182-183.

And

"From the days of Adam until today, the religions of God have been made manifest, one following the other, and each one of them fulfilled its due function, revived mankind, and provided education and enlightenment.'" – Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 51.

Now as to the Station of Adam, this may show you why Adam is not seen in the light of more recent Messengers.

"For the station of Adam, with regard to the appearance and manifestation of the divine perfections, was that of the embryo; the position of Christ was that of coming of age and maturation; and the dawning of the Most Great Luminary [Baha’u’llah] was the station of the perfection of the essence and of the attributes." – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, newly revised edition, p. 139.

Regards Tony

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, that is quite true. However that does was written in those texts entrirely invalid. Indeed the Bhagavad Gits is not entriely invalid either.

Then how is it you are picking and choosing which you want to keep and which you feel justified to discard? When you have someone from your religious group offer their opinion on a topic like reincarnation that does not agree with millenniums old understandings of reincarnation from the religions that taught about it from the beginning, you feel you have both the right and the justification to take a razor blade to the teachings of other religions and simply discard the bits as invalid because they don't align with your theology?

"Our prophet fixes your broken, corrupted scriptures". Do you not understand the offensive nature of this to those other religions? That may be a good marketing ploy to make converts to the unchurched, but it certainly doesn't convey that religion as a universal religion that embraces all the others to those other religions, does it?

Though I dont know what words were said by Krishna, I find a lot of truth in the Bhagavad Gita. All the words don't have to be what the revelator said for there to be validity in them.

But only the ones filtered through the ideas of your teachers, right? Or do you try to understand it from their points of view, through seeing it through their eyes as a legitimate view on the subjects, and not errors that need to be corrected by your teachers?

i wish I had never said that about the accuracy of the Qur'an, as that is relatively unimportant. That fact is that though the earlier revelations were less accurate, though still conveyed truth. This led to you going on a tirade on this subject.

You call my challenging your views as a "tirade"? That is absurd. Do you call any challenges to your ideas to be a viscous angry attack? Then why do you post in a "debate forum", if you are going to call anyone who debates your views as being on some out of control tirade? Believe me, I don't need to attack you because the points I raise in challenge speak for themselves. Why is it you on the other hand are personally attacking me calling my normal debate challenges as an emotional, angry tirade?

I know the answer to that already by the way. It's a simple principle. Anytime anyone in a debate begins to attack the other person challenging the views at a personal level, such as you maligning my posts as me being on a tirade, that tells everyone reading that you have no actual arguments to offer anymore, and attacking the "messenger" is your last line of defense to take the heat off and distract the argument away from your lost cause argument, by making it personal about the other person. In debate, this is known as an ad hominem. It's an implied acknowledgement of the person doing that they know they have lost the debate.

Many people here, including you have a false idea of what we are doing here.

I wish to point something out here, respectfully. Do you not hear how you use the language of "what we are doing here". Why not say, "what I am doing here"? Why this collective "we"? This to me says you see yourself as a member of a group collective on a mission to preach and make converts, to correct the errant beliefs and teachings of other religions with your true teaching from your prophet and board of religious directors.

I on the other hand am speaking my thoughts as an individual. I have no agenda, other than seeking and discerning a balanced understanding of truth. I see myself as actually a "truth seeker", willing to look at all my assumptions of truth and leave nothing unchallenged and unexamined. The fact you call my challenges to your comments to be a "tirade", gives the impression we don't have that same goal in mind, despite your chosen username. You appear to be speaking as a religious collective with a religious agenda.

You can think however you want to think, you can think for yourself, we are not trying to think for you. We have the right to say what we believe, like anybody else. We have the right to believe what we believe, and you have the right ot believe what you believe. I will not be silenced by you.

You view someone like myself challenging your assertions as trying to "silence you"? That's pretty extreme, don't you think? What are you really trying to say here. "I have the right to preach my beliefs without having them challenged."?

Of course your collective "we" has the right to believe what you believe. But that doesn't mean you have the right not attack others who dare to call your beliefs out and challenge them as fallacious in nature. If you don't want to hear criticism of your ideas, then don't post in debate forum. Live in an echo chamber of isolation instead.

If you really are a truth seeker, then you should welcome dissent. Not attack it when it comes.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Krishna -- 4000 years
Christianity -- 2000 years
Islam -- 1400 years
Baha'i -- 160 years

Do you understand that religions grow larger over time? Not only do the original followers garner more followers over time, but religious beliefs are also are passed down through the generations.

n the time of Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad we did not have instant globalized communication, no satellite television or internet social media. If you are not known world-wide in such circumstances of viral communications as today, you never will be.

When the real Mahdi/Christ Returns, he will be well-known around the world in less than a year if not a month.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

He called today and said he wanted to discuss the book but we did but he did not say much about the content of the book. I think he only read the chapters I sent him, 4-9, because he told me he would. He doesn't think there is any proof that there is an afterlife, so unlike me, he is not sure there is an afterlife. Also unlike me, he does not believe that there are psychic mediums who can communicate with spirits in the spiritual world and get information about the spiritual world.

He doesn't think we should dwell on the afterlife. He thinks we should focus on this life. He thinks that the purpose of this life is to love and cherish, caring, sharing, and appreciating, and being grateful for the things that we have. I cannot argue with that, but that doesn't mean we cannot also 'live in eternity,' as the book says, having the long range goal in mind while still focusing on the present.

We come to appreciate the words of Mozart that "death as we consider it closely, is the true goal of our existence."
(The Afterlife Revealed, p. 14)

At the very least, he is reading the portion of the book that you sent him. Perhaps he will be receptive to the possibility of an afterlife after a lengthy discussion with you. I've persuaded my fair share of skeptics to accept the possibility of an afterlife by using my ghost-hunting equipment, but I've observed that the most effective way to persuade a skeptic that there are earthbound spirits and an afterlife is to give them a reading if the chance presents itself and a spirit asks me to deliver a message. I do not, however, approach random people and tell them that I have a message from their deceased loved one because, first, that would be very awkward for both me and the other person, second, they would probably think I'm crazy, and third, I never force my gifts as a medium on others.

I will occasionally give a reading to someone if I believe they will be open to it, but I will not press the issue if the person is unwilling to listen. Being an empath is especially beneficial for me because it lets me judge how emotionally open a person is to hearing a special message from a loved one who has died. If I sense that the person is receptive to receiving a message from their deceased loved one, I will request a private conversation with them and, because I value my privacy, I will ask them not to disclose my identity. The person is, of course, very skeptical and doesn't believe me at first, until I reveal some personal information that only they and their deceased loved one knew. At that point, they were absolutely certain that I couldn't have known what I told them, and they believed in my gift.

 

[Trailblazer]

n the time of Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad we did not have instant globalized communication, no satellite television or internet social media. If you are not known world-wide in such circumstances of viral communications as today, you never will be.

It does not help much that we now have instant globalized communication, satellite television or internet social media. All that accomplishes is making the information about the Baha'i Faith available to more people.
People are the ones who decide whether to believe it or not.

Below are the seven reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah yet.

1. Many people have never heard of the Baha’i Faith, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, once the message has been delivered the Baha’is are not to blame if people reject the message.

2. But even after people know about the Baha’i Faith, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if it is true or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion.”

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.

The Truth is never obvious to everyone. In fact, few people find it.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

There are logical reasons why few people find it.

Few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through...

It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.

“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him. No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion. These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 183

When the real Mahdi/Christ Returns, he will be well-known around the world in less than a year if not a month.

That is just your belief, your personal opinion. It is not a fact, yet you are stating it as a fact.
Please tell me how you think that will be possible?
How would he become well-known as Mahdi/Christ around the world in less than a year if not a month?

If Jesus returned to this world, how would you know it was Jesus?

 

[soulsurvivor]

It does not help much that we now have instant globalized communication, satellite television or internet social media. All that accomplishes is making the information about the Baha'i Faith available to more people.
People are the ones who decide whether to believe it or not.

Exactly. They all have the information about Bahaullah and they have decided. Only less than 8 million buy the story.

The Real Mahdi/Christ will have no such problem. Once he emerges, the news will spread around the world fast and most of the people will accept him because he will be believable.

 

[CG Didymus]

Why not have a look CG?

Adam in the Quran

"They said, “Praise be to Thee! We have no knowledge but what Thou hast given us to know. Thou! Thou art the Knowing, the Wise.”

He said, “O Adam, inform them of their names.” And when he had informed them of their names, He said, “Did I not say to you that I know the hidden things of the Heavens and of the Earth, and that I know what ye bring to light, and what ye hide?” – Qur’an 2:19, 30-31.

Abdul'baha said in Some Answered Questions.

"...We are in the cycle which began with Adam and whose universal Manifestation is Baha’u’llah. – pp. 182-183.

And

"From the days of Adam until today, the religions of God have been made manifest, one following the other, and each one of them fulfilled its due function, revived mankind, and provided education and enlightenment.'" – Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 51.

Now as to the Station of Adam, this may show you why Adam is not seen in the light of more recent Messengers.

"For the station of Adam, with regard to the appearance and manifestation of the divine perfections, was that of the embryo; the position of Christ was that of coming of age and maturation; and the dawning of the Most Great Luminary [Baha’u’llah] was the station of the perfection of the essence and of the attributes." – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, newly revised edition, p. 139.

Regards Tony

Is the Biblical story of Adam true or is it fictional? If true, then he disobeyed God. If fictional, how can he be a manifestation? He isn't real. Or... is it that the Baha'is are saying that Adam was real, but the story in the Bible was fictional and only meant to be metaphorical. But the story continues from Adam to his children, to their children all the way to Noah, and then on to Abraham and then to Jacob who got renamed Israel. And the story continues to talk about the children of Israel. When, if ever, does the story start to be true and reflect the actual history of what really happened?

I think it is more likely to be lots of fiction mixed in with some possible true events that get embellished a lot with God and angels interacting with the characters in the story. And the characters? Maybe real, maybe be fictional. They might only be based on myths and legends. To some Jews and some Christians, they are made to be real, and they need to be real. For Baha'is, they kind of need to be both, real and fictional. So, with Adam, Baha'is say he was real, but the story about his life were fictional. And then they elevate him to a manifestation? That's not a belief. Your infallible prophet said that Adam was a manifestation. That is something that is supposedly The Truth. Based on what? Again, nothing but Baha'u'llah saying so.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Again, was Krishna a real, historical person. What can we say? Maybe? Were the things written about him true and accurate? I'd go with probably not, that it was myth and legend. So, why teach that he was a manifestation as if we know?

Baha'is believe Krishna was a real historical person. I believe Hindu scriptures do not fully portray an historical Krisha but one that is mythologized.

As a Baha'i, I believe Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God and the Baha'i narrative about Hinduism and Krishna makes perfect sense.

Because Baha'u'llah confirmed it? Did he? If not, then was Krishna and Hinduism first acknowledged as being true by anyone in the Baha'i Faith? Since Hinduism was already a religion prior to Krishna, who was the manifestation that started it? Then, how did Krishna change it? What new social teachings did he bring and what spiritual teachings did he confirm that were already part of Hinduism? Do we know?

Bahaú'llah grew up in Persia and was later exiled through Iraq, Turkey and Israel. Not suprisingly, there isn't much in his writings specifically about Hinduism.

I started a thread about this a while back:

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Abdu'l-Baha make more specific references to Krishna and Hinduism.

I ca'n't answer your specific questions about Krishna and the conditions of the people and religion in India five thousand years ago. I doubt if anyone could.

I'm okay with Hinduism being what it is. Maybe it's true, maybe not. Maybe it has some great spiritual truths mixed in with mythical stories. That doesn't bother me. It doesn't have to be that at one time it was perfect and true and then got corrupted. If it was made up by spiritual people that had visions and ideas of what they thought was true, and those ideas evolved over time, I'm alright with that. I don't need it to be from The One God. I'm okay with it being from people who wrote about the Gods and or God.

Cool. Its up to each of us to find a narrative that makes most sense.

With the Baha'i Faith it has to have been true and revealed by a manifestation... then corrupted. Again, maybe, maybe not. But I don't think it was. So, where does that leave me? Doubting the Baha'i Faith as being true, even though some of the things it teaches are true.

That's fine. I'm not trying to change anyones beliefs and if that makes sense for you, why change?

 

[CG Didymus]

"Our prophet fixes your broken, corrupted scriptures".

I'm okay with the Scriptures of different religions being wrong in some ways. I'm okay if the prophet or incarnation or whatever the person is supposed to be, isn't even real. Or, if they were real, that the story about him or her was embellished with great supernatural exploits and miracles. I'm okay if the spiritual truths in those Scriptures reflects and supports the beliefs and culture of the people from where those Scriptures came from.

What I have a problem with is those that have to believe their Scriptures as literal and inerrant when they sound mythical and fictional.

I also have a problem with the Baha'i explanation that seems to be saying that there were these people, manifestations of God, that brought a perfect message from the on true God. But, since they didn't write it down, it was written down way later and based on the oral traditions about what that person had said, done and taught.

So already, Baha'is have a reason to cast doubt on the validity of those Scriptures. They can say that those writings aren't necessarily the exact words and teachings of the prophet. Then they carry it even further by saying that the religious leaders added in their interpretations of those possibly already flawed Scriptures. And Baha'is say that for sure, some of those interpretations were wrong. Like when the early Church made Jesus part of a trinitarian God.

Baha'is say these great teachers, the manifestations, brought teachings that enabled civilization to advance to a higher material and spiritual level. But the message and teachings that advanced society were flawed Scriptures and corrupt interpretations of those Scriptures. Plus, some of those religions used force to convert people. Where is the "truth" in that?

Anyway, what Baha'is are able to do is to pretend they believe and support the beliefs and Scriptures of the other religions, but they don't. What they really mean is that "original" message from the founder/prophet of that religion was true, but the truth is no longer being taught and practiced by those religions. Here's a quote from Abdul Baha'...

The real teaching of Buddha is the same as the teaching of Jesus Christ. The teachings of all the Prophets are the same in character. Now men have changed the teaching. If you look at the present practice of the Buddhist religion, you will see that there is little of the Reality left. Many worship idols although their teaching forbids it. – Abdu’l-Baha, Abdu’l-Baha in London, p. 63.​

I do believe most all religions teach things that will make people better... more spiritual, more loving and less into just themselves and their own needs. But they all wrap those things up with so many doctrines and beliefs and things that must be believed to be "right" with God. Baha'is do the same thing. To be truly "right" with God, a person should recognize God's supposed newest divine teacher, Baha'u'llah. I just don't believe all of it. And where does that leave me? It leaves me doubting that he is really who he claimed to be, the return of Christ, the return of Buddha and Krishna... that he is the Jewish Messiah and everyone else ever promised by any religion.

I think it's worth researching and learning about it. But so many of the answers, or non-answers, Baha'is give to support their beliefs do more harm than good.

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'is believe Krishna was a real historical person. I believe Hindu scriptures do not fully portray an historical Krisha but one that is mythologized.

As a Baha'i, I believe Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God and the Baha'i narrative about Hinduism and Krishna makes perfect sense.



Bahaú'llah grew up in Persia and was later exiled through Iraq, Turkey and Israel. Not suprisingly, there isn't much in his writings specifically about Hinduism.

I started a thread about this a while back:

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Abdu'l-Baha make more specific references to Krishna and Hinduism.

I ca'n't answer your specific questions about Krishna and the conditions of the people and religion in India five thousand years ago. I doubt if anyone could.



Cool. Its up to each of us to find a narrative that makes most sense.



That's fine. I'm not trying to change anyones beliefs and if that makes sense for you, why change?

Thanks for responding. It's good to hear what you have to say.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Is the Biblical story of Adam true or is it fictional? If true, then he disobeyed God

The early Biblical stories have many meanings. Abdul'baha explained some of them and then left it up to us to read and decide what else they may be offering.

Personally it has not been a requirement I need to pursue.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

The Real Mahdi/Christ will have no such problem. Once he emerges, the news will spread around the world fast and most of the people will accept him because he will be believable.

You are still not explaining to me how this is going to happen.
Why will most people believe him, how will they know who he is?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The Real Mahdi/Christ will have no such problem. Once he emerges, the news will spread around the world fast and most of the people will accept him because he will be believable.

Of course, that's according to your religious beliefs, but obviously not everyone shares those beliefs. I'm curious to know why you believe what you claimed is true, and if there are any specific sources that convinced you that your preferred beliefs are correct.

 

[soulsurvivor]

You are still not explaining to me how this is going to happen.
Why will most people believe him, how will they know who he is?

That is up to him. A REAL Mahdi/Christ will be able to manage it. With Bahaullah it appears that there is nothing compelling enough to convince more than 8 million people.