How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

They would be Administering to the Baha'is. I see the worlds Governments would be most likely asking advice from the Universal House of Justice in the distant future.

Why in the world would a country's government be asking for advice from a very small religion, an intolerant inconsistent one at that? You guys sure think unrealistically.

 

[CG Didymus]

They will have a World Police Force.
When I think of police forces I usually think of our local Community Police Officer walking her area, but have you seen the films of police putting down the Catalan Elections?

But it's getting worse than that now.

A total silence by Bahais on this thread in response to my mention of my recent Spiritual Chapel visit and most fortunate cancer/asbestosis investigation results two days later.... got me looking into Bahai attitudes to Spiritualism.

It would read and appear as if Bahais do not accept Mediums, Healing or Spiritual meetings.

That might seem correct to you or other members, but Bahai guidance, control, government and supervision at Local and National Levels is all controlled (for now) by:-
SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLIES.

At best the whole faith seems as if a mess, at worst it looks as if it is similar to the Double-Think of Orwell's 1984.

A world religion with a world police force? That doesn't sound like paradise on Earth to me.

 

[CG Didymus]

Actually it's quite easy in our view. You have the year 1260 Anno Higirae coinciding with 1844 Anno Domini on the Gregorian calendar. Historically there were two movements separated by religion and distance. One was predominantly in North America called the Millerite movement that looked to the return of Christ in 1844. The other was a movement in Islam that looked to the fulfillment of prophecies of the appearance of the Mihdi or Qa'im in the year 1260 AH. Both were "messianic" and knew nothing of the other.

But one of the Baha'is has made every time period that could be made into 1260 years into 1260 years and every time made it come to 1844. Starting with Rev 11:2... the Holy City trampled for 42 months. The two witnesses prophecy for 1260 days. After that, they are killed and their dead bodies lie in the street for 31/2 days. Rev 12:6... the woman flees to the wilderness for 1260 days. Rev 13:5... the beast speaks blasphemies for 42 months. And in 13:18... the number of the beast, 666, is made a year in which to add the 42 months, which are changed into 1260 years.

All these refer to the same thing? The beginning of Islam to the beginning of the Baha'i Faith? Do you agree? Is this more or less the official Baha'i interpretation of this part of the Book of Revelation? Thanks.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I work in an area where language and communication needs to be clear and precise. That doesn't mean I'm any better at it than anyone else. I have certainly have had moments on this thread of communicating poorly.

There is a great deal of confusion and emotion in the arena of religion. It can be challenging for people in my country to discuss religion at all because of the risk of misunderstandings.

I would argue that we all have Christian beliefs and there is nothing wrong with saying that. The problem comes when people make assumptions. Whether we talk about teachings of Christ or Christian beliefs there will always be some who have misunderstand and make erroneous assumptions.



I don't live in America and so the language I choose may have a different meaning and context where I live.






The body of Christ can mean different things to different people. It can mean being a Christian, belonging to a church, or being part of the community of faithful believers. It can also refer to the body of Christ's teachings. Although I consider myself to be a believer in Christ, I avoid saying "I am part of the body of Christ" although technically it can be true depending on how the phrase is devised. Once again, tis phrased may be used and emphasised slightly different in New Zealand compared to the USA.



Of course.



Christianity appears different in the USA. My American Christian friend has an intensity about her Christian Faith, that has a different feel to it. I have never met anyone who spends an hour per day studying the bible for example. New Zealander Christians by comparison seem more relaxed and easy going. They would not question my use of language to describe my beliefs but my American Christian friend would.



I'm good with that, but I'm a New Zealander, so it doesn't bother me. If I had grown up as a Buddhist, been a Buddhist, and had ancestors going about many centuries that were Buddhist, I would probably think and feel differently about it.



Yes, thank you. I know Christian belief and its many nuances well.



It does go beyond that, I agree. It takes us to ultimate reality or the true nature of the universe we live in.



Sure.



When I spoke to the Christian Chaplain at the Baha'i bicentenary, the first question he asked me was about the volunteer work I do at the Christian medical centre. That's how he sees me, and I see him as one who promotes interfaith dialogue and understanding. Its what we do and how we are around people. I doubt if either of us really care about labels like Baha'i or Christian. They are just words after all.

With changing your expression, online, since there are various people from different countries, and the thread is so long we should by now understand how each other expresses ourselves, if we are to share our faith, it helps to share it in the manner the other understands it. If not, it is considered evangelism or lecture not an interfaith dialogue.

This were in interfaith it would have a different feel, I really dont talk about how I see things as a buddhist. Not because yall arent interested in learning about other faiths; some of you are, others are not. It goes beyond that. If you really having a discussion, its two sided. Unless this was a bahai DIR, I see no reason why it cant be. Bahai arent debaters like I see with many other people on the forum. So...

Someone did tell me once to just talk from what I believe rather than changing my language so christians would understand buddhism on surface level in the language they understand. The Buddha changed his language and analogies so that those he spoke with understood him. I have suttas on that. Its also something innate about other people understanding. When I cant understand, its frustrating. Vinayaka and I have said many times "this is a different paradigm who is 'we'; remember, I dont think this way"

Once we say these things, isnt it easier to express the same thing in how we understand your teachings? Of course you understand them. If we dont, thats like talking to a brick wall and hoping for different feedback.

Lost in translation.

 

[CG Didymus]

After the Bab's death contention, conflict and even murders occured between some of the Bab's followers and the new Bahai followers. It was not peaceful.

And why some Christians, Muslims and Bahais would place such emphasis upon crazy-fangled numerical jumbles to produce prophets, like rabbits from top-hats, just amuses me. Yes, it deserves ridicule.

If they didn't say they were the fulfillment of all the major religions, and just say they had a new religion, I wouldn't be questioning them so much. But what about you? It sounds like you know quite a bit about the inner workings of the Baha'i Faith and it ain't all that nice and peaceful.

 

[Vinayaka]

A world religion

So much would be lost.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The body of Christ can mean different things to different people. It can mean being a Christian, belonging to a church, or being part of the community of faithful believers. It can also refer to the body of Christ's teachings. Although I consider myself to be a believer in Christ, I avoid saying "I am part of the body of Christ" although technically it can be true depending on how the phrase is devised. Once again, tis phrased may be used and emphasised slightly different in New Zealand compared to the USA.

I honestly don't think so. A Buddhist, Bahai, Jew, and a Pagan would not be a part of The Body of Christ. Every christian, who identifies and practices as such, would be regardless where they are and how they interpret scriptures in their spiritual growth. It's based on like core values: belief in a creator, salvation, christ divinity (however defined), and resurrection. The Passion, to put it shortly. Everything beyond that: Eucharist or not, Church or Hall, LGBT supportive christian church and total traditional church doesn't define the body of christ. If that's so, no one would be part of the body. Everyone is too different. (aka. too much diversity)

I don't know about New Zealand, but it would helpfully avoid unnecessary provocative questions to say you're not the body of christ here. South Eastern states are very strict on whose part of the body. Virginia is somewhat depending on where you go. Most likely western states are much more strict about it.

Christianity appears different in the USA. My American Christian friend has an intensity about her Christian Faith, that has a different feel to it. I have never met anyone who spends an hour per day studying the bible for example. New Zealander Christians by comparison seem more relaxed and easy going. They would not question my use of language to describe my beliefs but my American Christian friend would.

I heard of that. I think someone said in Africa, not many people are (edit) not t0o worried who is this type of christian and who is that type of christian. The states have a different mindset altogether.

I'm good with that, but I'm a New Zealander, so it doesn't bother me. If I had grown up as a Buddhist, been a Buddhist, and had ancestors going about many centuries that were Buddhist, I would probably think and feel differently about it.

Yes, thank you. I know Christian belief and its many nuances well.

Haha. Try traveling from one town to another here, you'd feel the intensity and how people connect in christ differently than another area you're in. For example, Catholics here are tolerant of non-catholics who come to the church. Smaller Churches are very reluctant because I was told by a priest they don't want people taking the Eucharist when they aren't confirmed.

When I spoke to the Christian Chaplain at the Baha'i bicentenary, the first question he asked me was about the volunteer work I do at the Christian medical centre. That's how he sees me, and I see him as one who promotes interfaith dialogue and understanding. Its what we do and how we are around people. I doubt if either of us really care about labels like Baha'i or Christian. They are just words after all.

It's the country not the religion. Most people I meet from other countries have a view of if you are following The Buddha when you act in love. The difference, like in christianity, is your goal in service not the service itself. Is it to be saved? To be reborn? To achieve moksha? and so forth. Americans are the only ones I know concerned about who is who which I agree it is important. Giving names in some cultures is just as important and well meaning as titles or labels appreciated by Americans.

I honestly don't care for "Americans are like this..." but we of X country are like that. All on RF, it's always westerners in a bad light of some type or another. Even from Americans who are militants and/or been overseas says things like this above. I can't travel and I can't do a lot of in-country travel. So, it takes on a different effect. I'd hate to go to another country, come here and say "Americans take stuff for granted" and feel grateful about it.

Bahaullah to The Bab is like President to Obama. Labels mean a lot. I just wish people would consider America having our own culture as well. We do have our own culture. Its not all technology etc. It's an actual culture-our own food, our own ways of living, our own language/ways of expressing ourselves etc.

 

[Dawnofhope]

This is a clear cut and good information to know about Bahai; and, all the things Bahai disagree with are the cornerstones of the christian faith.

I thought is was excellent to have a list of differences perceived or otherwise between an American conservative Christian and Baha'is. Christians like to look at the differences, Baha'is the points of agreement, but both have their place. We have had that discussion.

1. Christian's view of god is dependent on the divinity of christ not the other way around. If both of you believed in the same god, the same gospels, and the same message from the apostles whether they wrote it or not, I'd hope you'd take it as written from the bible not an interpretation of it. (Two messages from the same god doesn't make sense.)

For many (not all) Christians, Jesus is physically God incarnate. So viewing God as being an essence that is separate from God presents problems to a Christian worldview. However there are strong arguments that can be made from scripture and the gospels that this fundamental Christian view is not biblically based, and historically we see this belief was widely established with the Nicene Creed during the 4th century, that carried the weight of Emperor Constantine's imperial degree, lest anyone dare to disagree. There are however Christians that have a similar outlook to the Baha'is that Jesus is not God incarnate.

2. Without Christ's atonement, there is no christian faith. Whether sins are inherited or the temptation is inherited, like in the OT, there needs to be some blood atonement for the forgiveness of sins. That's why you have wine as blood and bread as body. It's the sacrifice (blood) and life (mana/bread) of christ. Once you deviate from the atonement belief, it is no longer christian.

That's a perspective the Christian's use to reinforce the exclusivity of their claims that only through Christ can we come to God. Baha'is argue all the Manifestations of God suffered for the sake of humanity. Baha'u'llah was tortured and spent 40 years of His life in prison or exiled. Christ's sacrificing His life is an essential part of the Christian faith, but The Bab sacrificed His life too.

Baha'is would agree with the necessity of the Manifestations of God for salvation, but we need to consider how that happens.

There are other meanings in regard to the bread and wine that Christ shared at His last supper, and one of these concerns the New Covenant, thus making a break from Judaism and bring a new Teachings from God.

Baha'is reject the doctrine of original sin, where we are all paying the price for Adam's alleged crime of disobeying God by eating an apple from the tree of life.

3. Forgiveness of sins through jesus is a must. If OT says animals can cover sins of god's chosen people with the jews, why say the blood of a human cannot be the final atonement thus forgiveness of sins in the NT. Forgiveness of sins is one of the central themes of the bible. That, and in christian view, why forgive others if you don't believe christ forgave you-if you are saying you believe in christian beliefs.

God can forgive sins as with other Manifestations of God, not just Jesus. The language of sin, forgiveness, and redemption though the language is different is present in both Judaism and the Baha'i Faith. The language used is simply man made theology to justify an exclusivity that Christ never intended.

4. The sinful nature of mankind whether it's temptation to sin or inherited sin, this is a central theme in the bible too. Without sin or inherited temptation from sin, there'd be no need to believe in christ nor say one is saved. What christians do for others is a reflection of what christ did for them not separate from it.

The Catholics are big on the original sin. It is a man made doctrine that Christ never taught. I know you don't believe in it.

5. The resurrection is a huge part of all denominations of the christian faith. Given you don't believe in atonement and nature of sin, I can see why you don't believe in the resurrection. However, it is not just spiritual but spiritual and literal go together in the christian faith. Once you depart the literal from the spiritual, you can believe in anything and call yourself spiritual but not religious. No one would need to be christian, or bahai for that matter, if some christians and bahai believe that god/creator cannot raise the dead. Somewhat like putting in god's mouth what he can and cannot do-from a christian point of view.

Jesus never taught that He rose from the dead. He did refer to the miracle of Jonah, but this can be understood in a variety of ways. I agree that for most Christians, the resurrection is seen as essential part of their theology. To take it has being literally true is major weakness in their theology, but we are all free to chose what we believe. The problem comes when Christians try to present the rational basis behind an event that did not, and could not have happened.

6. The triune nature of the godhead is also a cornerstone of the christian faith. Maybe it's you disagree with The Church's interpretation of it? Regardless the interpretation, you need to believe in the divinity of jesus and his literal role in salvation in order to see how the father/creator, son, and holy spirit are one with differing roles. People fuss over the definitions. I disagree with the trinity but the relationship with all three are in scripture no matter how we both interpret it.

The triune god is another creation from the Nicene Creed and Constantine's legacy. Once again, nothing to do with what Christ taught, but we all believe as we believe.

7. This is all of christianity in a nutshell. But you need to know about forgiveness of sins and the divinity of christ to understand reconciliation from god and redemption/resurrection.

The resurrection of Christ and Divinity of Christ are unique beliefs to Christianity alone. Forgiveness, like love isn't. These are the two most obvious differences between the conservative Christians and Baha'is.

8. One Catholic on here told me that lucifer is a personification of evil. Maybe Bahai disagrees with denominational interpretations of these things but they are still extremely and literally important despite that. If you don't believe in evil, of course you wouldn't find a reason to be redeemed and saved. Yet, the "right/wrong" is a part of the christian faith. If Bahai believed in Lucifer/personified evil then they may find the need to be saved. It's a huge part of the christian faith. Without lucifer, no salvation.

Evil is absence of good, like darkness is absence of light. It could also be seen as separation from God. Its remedy is to draw closer to Him and apply His teachings to our lives. We don't need a literal Satan or Lucifer, but Christians love to talk about him.

9. Oh my gosh. The miracles of jesus is totally needed in the christian faith in order to believe in christ and the gospels. You no longer believe in the gospels as written when you take away christ's miracles. For example, if jesus did not raise the dead (his father rose the dead through jesus' faith in him), no one would have faith that there is a resurrection. So, giving the dead life is not only symbolic but the literal story needed in order for the disciples to "see" the works of christ not just hear him say it's all symbolism. Also, on that note, christ would not need to come if we stripped him of his divinity, role, miracles, and symbolized his teachings and kept general nature of his teachings that many religions share but are not the core of that faith.

The only miracle the Baha'i writings reject is the resurrection of Christ. All the other miracles may well have happened but their significance is the spiritual message they convey, not a proof of prophethood.

10. If jesus doesn't return, then christian's faith in salvation would be moot.

Baha'is of course believe Christ has returned. Christians have a wide diversity of beliefs around the return of Christ and what it means. One example is believing that His return will be accompanied by miraculous signs such as appearing on clouds that can be seen everywhere in the world and the stars literally falling from heaven. Good luck with that.

11. I think Shoel is a Catholic teaching. Not many people like Catholics though they put the bible together. I'd assume they'd have more knowledge of the originals than those who broke off from them. (Telephone game)

Shoel is about the after life as understood by the Jews. Evidently Jonah went there when he spent 3 days in the belly of a whale. What my friend probably meant was heaven and hell. I think she was getting tired and running out of ideas at that point.

12. What does Bahai believe differently about the OT prophets?

Nothing. I'm sure my friend had something in mind when she wrote that. I have no idea what.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Maybe I should have been clear in the beginning, not sure. I do not believe in any christian teaching. I'm just going by my experiences in various Churches, Southern Baptist, Northern Baptist (they are different, I noticed), Pentecostal (where I got baptized first), Presbyterian, JW for a couple of times and dialogue with them, Episcopalian, (I got to go to Latin Mass once, that was different in and of itself), and, of course, Roman Catholic.

I thought is was excellent to have a list of differences perceived or otherwise between an American conservative Christian and Baha'is. Christians like to look at the differences, Baha'is the points of agreement, but both have their place. We have had that discussion.

Shrugs. Nothing wrong with seeing similarities. It's not a christian thing, it's cultural. My issue is why is it negative as some Bahai say it is not the fact that we differ/or that I use the word. I'll change differences to diversity and opinions.

For many (not all) Christians, Jesus is physically God incarnate. So viewing God as being an essence that is separate from God presents problems to a Christian worldview. However there are strong arguments that can be made from scripture and the gospels that this fundamental Christian view is not biblically based, and historically we see this belief was widely established with the Nicene Creed during the 4th century, that carried the weight of Emperor Constantine's imperial degree, lest anyone dare to disagree. There are however Christians that have a similar outlook to the Baha'is that Jesus is not God incarnate.

I mentioned that the divinity of christ is still an overall belief regardless of how one defines the relationship between christ and his father.

That's a perspective the Christian's use to reinforce the exclusivity of their claims that only through Christ can we come to God. Baha'is argue all the Manifestations of God suffered for the sake of humanity. Baha'u'llah was tortured and spent 40 years of His life in prison or exiled. Christ's sacrificing His life is an essential part of the Christian faith, but The Bab sacrificed His life too.

Of course Bahai has diverse opinions. Just explaining that atonement is very important in christianity. Without it, there is no reason for the gospels to exist.

Baha'is reject the doctrine of original sin, where we are all paying the price for Adam's alleged crime of disobeying God by eating an apple from the tree of life.

I don't agree with original sin. I did put temptation to sin that I read the Jews believe while most christians believe in original sin. Regardless, there is a consequence of sin that can only be forgiven by blood.

God can forgive sins as with other Manifestations of God, not just Jesus. The language of sin, forgiveness, and redemption though the language is different is present in both Judaism and the Baha'i Faith. The language used is simply man made theology to justify an exclusivity that Christ never intended.

Of course this is Bahai belief. In Christianity (since we're talking about diversity rather than unity at the moment) forgiveness of sins is a cornerstone tenant. It makes sense why Bahai would have diverse opinions. So much is interconnected that if you don't believe in one thing, other things fall apart.

The Catholics are big on the original sin. It is a man made doctrine that Christ never taught. I know you don't believe in it.

I don't believe in sin at all. I read Jews believe in temptation to sin. Catholics believe in original sin. That's why I mentioned both so the conversation won't digress on denominational opinions. Besides the point.

Jesus never taught that He rose from the dead. He did refer to the miracle of Jonah, but this can be understood in a variety of ways. I agree that for most Christians, the resurrection is seen as essential part of their theology. To take it has being literally true is major weakness in their theology, but we are all free to chose what we believe. The problem comes when Christians try to present the rational basis behind an event that did not, and could not have happened.

Raising from the dead is an experience in Catholicism and, edit, some baptist and pentecostal churches. I've been to protestant Churches, been a bible-thumper, I guess you can say for a short period of my teenage life. My brothers told me I talked about nothing else at the time. Wore their ears out. It's not what's written but what's experienced. If god was dependent on what people wrote in the book, who, when, and why, I don't see how any god of abraham believers can believe anything and call it judaism, christian, islam, or bahai even.

The triune god is another creation from the Nicene Creed and Constantine's legacy. Once again, nothing to do with what Christ taught, but we all believe as we believe.

I think it's you guys have another perspective than Catholic's interpretation of it. Here is what I said:

Regardless the interpretation, you need to believe in the divinity of jesus and his literal role in salvation in order to see how the father/creator, son, and holy spirit are one with differing roles.

People fuss over the definitions. I disagree with the trinity but the relationship with all three are in scripture no matter how we both interpret it.​

The resurrection of Christ and Divinity of Christ are unique beliefs to Christianity alone. Forgiveness, like love isn't. These are the two most obvious differences between the conservative Christians and Baha'is.

This has to do with expression. If you say you have christian beliefs, a christian will associate forgives and love with christ rather than an independent emotion that most faiths support.

Evil is absence of good, like darkness is absence of light. It could also be seen as separation from God. Its remedy is to draw closer to Him and apply His teachings to our lives. We don't need a literal Satan or Lucifer, but Christians love to talk about him.

What exactly is evil? I know darkness is an absence of light but these words like evil I never got. I never incorporated them into my faith because they are very foreign.

The only miracle the Baha'i writings reject is the resurrection of Christ. All the other miracles may well have happened but their significance is the spiritual message they convey, not a proof of prophethood.

Shrugs. Just stating what I know and experience.

Baha'is of course believe Christ has returned. Christians have a wide diversity of beliefs around the return of Christ and what it means. One example is believing that His return will be accompanied by miraculous signs such as appearing on clouds that can be seen everywhere in the world and the stars literally falling from heaven. Good luck with that.

This sounds similar to Islam, I think. Did christ already returned in Islam?

 

[loverofhumanity]

But will there some greed and some lust? Or, will everyone be perfect? If not, then people will remain imperfect and only a few will be trying to reach the higher levels of perfection, but... still will never perfectly attain them. But what about the average people? Will they have a little bit of the negative traits in their character?

My understanding is that people will come first not profit, that whereas today ones wealth and standing in society are things t9 be proud of, at that time a good character will be what is prized.

Priorities will change from purely materialistic pursuits to spiritual and virtuous ones. Religion will be popular. People will be morally giants compared to today, crime and lawlessness will be rare but still exist. Things like the drug trade and other immoral businesses won’t exist. Science will advance greatly much more than now.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Interested stuff in Jesus' sermon on the mount.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
How is this explained? But then he goes on:
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
So the ones that equal or less righteousness than the scribes and the Pharisees won't go into the kingdom of heaven? Next:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
So can we take Jesus literally on his "social" laws? He makes qualitative changes? So if a person lusts or steals, that person should pluck his eye out or cut off his hand? And this is to avoid having the whole body being cast into hell? Since Baha'is don't believe in the Christian hell, was Jesus lying and trying to scare them into doing good by threatening them with hell? Next:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
So the new "social" law is don't take revenge and expect the eye for the eye. Instead, if some one does something evil against you, let them do it again? If someone sues your for something, don't fight it, but give them more? And on the other one, go double the miles? This is the "official" new "social" law? I don't think it ever got enforced. Or, was it just examples of how to be spiritual and not be wrapped up in being material?

17. Christ did not come to destroy belief in God and Moses but to confirm that Moses was true and also bring more guidance.

18. My understand is heaven and earth refer to the Revelation of God the age. So until the next Revelation and next age all the laws must be obeyed and are valid until then.

19. All must obey the laws of the Manifestation for the age He lives in and will be held accountable.

20. The sribes and Pharisees denied Christ so unless one was better than them b6 accepting Jesus they had turned away from God. To be near to God is Heaven and to be far from God is hell.

29. My understanding is that whatever is not in harmony with the laws and teachings of God should be discarded and not adopted in ones life.

38. To pay no need t9 rejection and hate. It’s the same with Baha’is. People insult and say terrible things about Baha’u’llah but we are told not to take it personally and let people abuse all they want but be patient and not retaliate. This is what Christ taught. But that does not mean we do not protect ourselves or are not permitted self defense.

Christ nowhere says we cannot defend ourselves but He does not approve of revenge.

 

[loverofhumanity]

At this point in time there is only one religion causing great turmoil, (yes there are minor skirmishes elsewhere, often not religion themed though) and perhaps only the radical element of that one. So I would change 'religions' to 'religion'. I don't like being lumped in with that.

No your religion is not lumped in except with those who are tolerant and peace loving.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That was an Abrahamic law, not found in dharmic faiths, and good on you, but please don't suggest it was anything new to the world. Gandhi spoke against it really well in his famous quote, drawing on ancient Hindu scriptures, and his own common sense.

The Hindu teachings have always taught non violence I acknowledge that and we’ll before many other religions were born.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why in the world would a country's government be asking for advice from a very small religion, an intolerant inconsistent one at that? You guys sure think unrealistically.

Did I not say the Distant Future?

There is absolutly no doubt the Faith of Baha'u'llah will grow.

I am glad to know that there are many of you, with great hearts, that will not persecute those that choose to be part of the growth.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

Why in the world would a country's government be asking for advice from a very small religion, an intolerant inconsistent one at that? You guys sure think unrealistically.

It could be argued that a brilliant economic strategy would be needed in order to bring stability, and thence unity, to the World.
I seem to remember that in connection with principles about econmics Bahauallah advised (in so many words) to 'leave that to the economists'.

 

[oldbadger]

A world religion with a world police force? That doesn't sound like paradise on Earth to me.

For mostly each and every claim, tenet, guide, rule or law that I remember about Bahai, there is an equal and opposite claim, tenet, guide, rule or law which can be pointed to in times of alternate need.

 

[oldbadger]

If they didn't say they were the fulfillment of all the major religions, and just say they had a new religion, I wouldn't be questioning them so much. But what about you? It sounds like you know quite a bit about the inner workings of the Baha'i Faith and it ain't all that nice and peaceful.

No..... I don't know anything about the inner workings of Bahai, but I don't think that many Bahais do either.

Several months ago an experienced Bahai showed that they had no idea about how the Faith would run if it should ever develop into a World power.

Nobody on RF (imo) has ever posted a thread against or questioning Bahai. It has been left alone for yonks, but in a situation where a person might run a thread to promote the wonders of any religion they're probably going to get shown some otherwise hidden truths.

 

[arthra]

Hello Arthra. I am most happy to receive your understandings, but Bahauallah didn't write any of that, and the folowing sentences, snatched at random from the offered writings, put the Bahai opinion firmly into its place:-
..................... to pay much attention to persons who are imbued with spiritualistic ideas is rather useless............
........................ in most cases, are an indication of a deep psychological disturbance.................avoid as much as possible giving undue consideration to such matters.

Arthra, Bahais talk about how spiritual they are, but they do not appear as if to acknowledge spirituality, to support it or to practice it.

It's alright Badger .. You can be a "spiritualist" if you want to be.

 

[oldbadger]

So much would be lost.

There is only one, growing rapidly into every corner...... followed by mostly everybody ............. never the prophesy of any messenger (afaik) ............... never even guessed at even 50 years ago......

.......... but don't hold your breath, because there could possibly be a phrase, line or sentence which, if strangled enough, could show that a Prophet Foretold it all!

The World Wide Web.

 

[arthra]

Of course you don't.
But in a Bahai World the Local, National and Universal Houses of Justice would be controlling the World.
That's one of the key reasons why they were initiated.

Not so! Not at all. We only deal with Baha'i issues in the jurisdiction we serve... that's it. In the future and that may mean centuries there may be "Houses of Justice" that will deal with more issues than we have today, but for now we are strictly and I mean the term quite literally we are "non-political"