Is progressive revelation believable?

[LuisDantas]

Of course we should take the divine Messengers seriously. Not taking them seriously is the reason the world is so screwed up. It's like a class room of students that don't want to listen to the teacher.

It is because so many Bahais hold similar views to yours, so hopelessly theocentric, that I realized that I may admire the intentions, but never the doctrine.

Frankly, I have no time for such views and hope that they become the historical curiosity that they are bound to become sooner rather than later.

Religion is not supposed to be a function of theocentrism. It has much more august functions and can't in good faith afford to neglect them.

Well islam is a revelation of old anyway. There is a new revelation for this time and age.

There are many. Arguably as many as there are living people. And some see fit to repudiate the flaws of Islaam, which are severe and crippling, not least because it is so darned theocentric. Too theocentric for anyone's good.

Fully acknowledging mistakes such as those of Islaam is sometimes necessary in order to go forward.

I can't speak for Bahais, but personally I find labelling Islaam an obsolete revelation, poetically fair as it is (since it did the same with Judaism and Christianity), just far too bland to be worth the trouble.

Not only bland, but ultimately seriously inaccurate, to the point of failing Muslims. They do deserve the encouragement to learn better, but the Bahai Faith is not presenting the proper case to encourage them. A more direct challenge to their attachments to theocentrism, legalism and scripture is necessary.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So merely disagreeing on the philosophy is seeing and claiming that the Baha'i faith is evil? That's how you see people who disagree? Hindus don't even believe in evil as a concept, unlike the Abrahamic faiths, so it's really quite the illogical jump, don't you think?

I’m not sure why you have Tony’s and my post together. It looks as if you have taken both out of context and inferred something that was neither said nor intended.

I’m not Hindu, not have I grown up with Hinduism so I wouldn’t begin to speak for one Hindu let alone all Hindus.

Problem of evil in Hinduism - Wikipedia

How do you understand the Baha’i perspective of evil and how do you know where it sits within the spectrum of Abrahamic beliefs?

 

[Vinayaka]

I’m not sure why you have Tony’s and my post together. It looks as if you have taken both out of context and inferred something that was neither said nor intended.

I’m not Hindu, not have I grown up with Hinduism so I wouldn’t begin to speak for one Hindu let alone all Hindus.

Problem of evil in Hinduism - Wikipedia

How do you understand the Baha’i perspective of evil and how do you know where it sits within the spectrum of Abrahamic beliefs?

You'd have to read post 572 again. I have no idea about how Baha'is view evil, but our friend Tony, in conjunction with od16g6 implied that some non-Baha'is see the Baha'i as evil. I'm not sure what you're reading, as it wasn't you whom I was addressing at all. So it wasn't about the Baha'i version of evil ... at all.

For the record, I definitely don't see the Baha' faith as evil.

Carry on.

 

[paarsurrey]

That's one thing I appreciate about you, Paar. You speak for yourself, and rarely quote the Ammadiyya prophet. (Sorry, I forget his name just now.) The Ammadiyyas number at least 3 times, probably much much more than the Baha'i faith, both face persecution from Islam, and yet one seems cultish, while the other seems okay. Perhaps it's because you're the only representative of your faith on these forums, I don't know.

Thanks for your appreciation my friend @Vinayaka !

Whatever I write is just for my own personal benefit. I get to know the people of the world and how do they think. In fact we all benefit from one another, a lot.

I love this RF too much, and all of its members of whatever faith/no-faith they belong to.
The basic training I got from the books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 - the Promised Messiah/Imam Mahdi. His books teach and train how to make an argument. He also told the golden principle of comparative study of religions and while practicing , I developed as to how to apply it to No-Religions also.

He also instilled profound love of Quran in me and how its reasonable message is to be ascertained from Quran.

I also respect and appreciate the scriptures of all revealed religions and enjoy reading them.
But after reading Iqan I am convinced from its internal stuff, that it is not a scripture from G-d, and by further investigation in the internet and the friends in the Forum, meanwhile, it "revealed"/occurred to me that It is from Bahaullah who quit Babism, then Islam and then he had no religion altogether.
Bahaullah, I understand, did not have any Direct Word of G-d per se (Iqan suggests), so there is no question of him having any progression on the previous scriptures of any religion. There is no chance at all, I understand.

Sorry for our friend @od19g6 .

Right, please?

Regards

 

[Vouthon]

How do you understand the Baha’i perspective of evil and how do you know where it sits within the spectrum of Abrahamic beliefs?

My understanding, please correct me if wrong, is that the Baha'i perspective on evil is similar to the Catholic one I outlined earlier, at least according to Abdu'l-Baha in Some Answered Questions:

Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.

In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence—that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.​

This is very close to St. Augustine's description of the non-existence of evil in the fourth century, as a privatio boni (absence of good):

Absence of good - Wikipedia

“Evil is the privatio boni (absence of good): a mere nothing”–St Augustine

So, I think Baha'is don't believe evil exists either in any real, metaphysical sense.

What is the Jewish and Islamic position, I wonder? I've never directly studied that issue in their theologies in isolation, so I can't quite recall off the top of my head.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But if you have not, you dont knnow what it is saying. So you cant make statements about it without knowing what it is saying.

That is also because it is not known what Baha'u'llah has said. The Baha'i writings contain the Essence of all past Faiths. If we read and understand what Baha'u'llah offered, it is offered we know the intent and meaning of all past scriptures. The laws and rituals may be different, but the Spiritual Message has the same aim.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

That is also because it is not known what Baha'u'llah has said. The Baha'i writings contain the Essence of all past Faiths. If we read and understand what Baha'u'llah offered, it is offered we know the intent and meaning of all past scriptures. The laws and rituals may be different, but the Spiritual Message has the same aim.

Regards Tony

Thats different brother

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So merely disagreeing on the philosophy is seeing and claiming that the Baha'i faith is evil? That's how you see people who disagree? Hindus don't even believe in evil as a concept, unlike the Abrahamic faiths, so it's really quite the illogical jump, don't you think?

It is fine to disagree, please feel free to do so, as you choose do.

The question you are faced with is, if what Baha'u'llah offered is the Truth, what light does that put many responses to posts in?

At the same time, I know many will not want to face those decisions and will do all they can to eliminate those choices from this world, they do not want to see a Unity of the entire human race that live on but one planet, our home. After all what would rugby matches be like without a die for National pride

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

It is fine to disagree, please feel free to do so, as you choose do.

The question you are faced with is, if what Baha'u'llah offered is the Truth, what light does that put many responses to posts in?

At the same time, I know many will not want to face those decisions and will do all they can to eliminate those choices from this world, they do not want to see a Unity of the entire human race that live on but this one planet, our home. After all what would rugby matches be like without a die for National pride

Regards Tony

As usual you manage to avoid the topic altogether with more Bahai propaganda. Obviously most people want to see the world and all its people getting along. The essential difference is that most of us can easily see that is possible without the need for prophets, or in some cases one particular prophet.

Carry on.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thats different brother

That is Progressive Pevelation and a major part of the Baha'i teachings, that is all explained in the Kitab-i-Iqan.

No lessons from grade 1 to University are lost, the knowledge find's fulfilment and is built upon, only by greater educational pursuits, with an open mind that embraces all that is from God, all that is good and a mind that accepts it learns from all that is.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Agreed, in this respect the Baha'i laws are more libertarian than those operative in Islam i.e. leaving more scope for discretion in clothing and individual agency in choosing dress etc.:

"Many rules about dress had their origins in the laws and traditional practices of the world's religions. For example, the Shí'ih clergy adopted for themselves a distinctive headdress and robes and, at one time, forbade the people to adopt European attire. Muslim practice, in its desire to emulate the custom of the Prophet, also introduced a number of restrictions with regard to the trim of the moustache and the length of the beard.

"Bahá'u'lláh removed such limitations on one's apparel and beard. He leaves such matters to the "discretion" of the individual..."

(Notes to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, no. 175)
​

With that being said, there are a few small restrictions i.e.

"Shave not your heads; God hath adorned them with hair, and in this there are signs from the Lord of creation to those who reflect upon the requirements of nature. He, verily, is the God of strength and wisdom. Notwithstanding, it is not seemly to let the hair pass beyond the limit of the ears. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Lord of all worlds." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i Aqdas)​

"Shoghi Effendi has made clear that, unlike the prohibition on shaving the head, this law forbidding the growing of the hair beyond the lobe of the ear pertains only to men." (The Kitab-i Aqdas, notes)
​

Not clothing, as such, but it does deal with appearance / fashion / hair growth, just as Shariah law does in Islam as well.

There is also the common usage of 'modest' without any real definition. One person's modest may well be another's skimpy. A bikini is modest compared to nudity. I'm certainly not sure what 'modest' means.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

As usual you manage to avoid the topic altogether with more Bahai propaganda. Obviously most people want to see the world and all its people getting along. The essential difference is that most of us can easily see that is possible without the need for prophets, or in some cases one particular prophet.

Carry on.

It is not off topic, as it is about progressive revelation.

My answer offers you get to choose.

You could offer as to what harm there is in us accepting all faith has a common foundation, that we are one people on one planet and why, given the world today, that would not aid a progression of humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But you didn't answer my question, though. Tell me, how many crimes will attract the death penalty in your spiritual Baha'i world?

More........ Why will there be an armed police force in your Baha'i world?

Will the Bab's laws be released in your Baha'i world?

The problem is you approach this subject in your thoughts, in this day and not with what was offered by Baha'u'llah and what will be known in the future.

It is all but unfounded speculation. To which you have chosen to see in a negative light.

The first thought to consider is the Death Penalty is still law in many places that choose not to use it. That does not have to change as that is also allowable under Baha'i Law.

What has not been considered that in the future, people may not be able to live with tha crimes they have committed against others, they may long for that penalty as it is the ultimate penalty for the crime committed and wipes the slate clean.

But that is also speculation.

RegardsTony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think one of the most damaging hypocrisies was from the Grandson, who proclaimed that all Baha'is should have a will, but he himself was somehow above having a will, thus throwing the entire faith into a chaotic scramble to stay with a semblance of organisation.

So that post has an intent, what study have you done on that issue?

What is a Baha'i will for? What could have Shoghi Effendi put in a will?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

don't find any harm in what they do. It is just interesting. And yes, I guess some people find that disagreement equals hate. But most dharmic type people don't find hate helpful.

There is a difference between disagreement and returning with an answer offering a different intent other than what was posted.

Example. As a Baha'i I can disagree with the Doctrine of the Trinity and offer an alternative thought.

I do not have to return to say the Trinity had an intent, that it does not have in a Christians eye. It is then just to ask why one would choose to do that.

Have a look at some posts above, returning with old speculative arguments that have been shown they do not have that intent, it has become much like the 3 stooges, have to get a laugh by hitting and poking.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I’m not sure why you have Tony’s and my post together. It looks as if you have taken both out of context and inferred something that was neither said nor intended.

You'd have to read post 572 again. I have no idea about how Baha'is view evil, but our friend Tony, in conjunction with od16g6 implied that some non-Baha'is see the Baha'i as evil. I'm not sure what you're reading, as it wasn't you whom I was addressing at all. So it wasn't about the Baha'i version of evil ... at all.

For the record, I definitely don't see the Baha' faith as evil.

Carry on.

Firstly it has not been said that it is seen as evil.

It is all about offering speculative intent, when there is no intent as speculated by the poster.

I ask why did you bring up Shoghi Effendi and the Will in the manner you did?

Do you know enough to make an informed comment? Was there an intent you had when posting that?

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

It is not off topic, as it is about progressive revelation.

My answer offers you get to choose.

You could offer as to what harm there is in us accepting all faith has a common foundation, that we are one people on one planet and why, given the world today, that would not aid a progression of humanity.

Regards Tony

Yes that was the topic of the OP, but not of the exchange we were having. I'll bring you back to topic then, with a direct question, since you conveniently went all around it with more irrelevant stuff. Do you believe that Hindus think your faith is evil. Yes, or no.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Agreed, in this respect the Baha'i laws are more libertarian than those operative in Islam i.e. leaving more scope for discretion in clothing and individual agency in choosing dress etc.:

"Many rules about dress had their origins in the laws and traditional practices of the world's religions. For example, the Shí'ih clergy adopted for themselves a distinctive headdress and robes and, at one time, forbade the people to adopt European attire. Muslim practice, in its desire to emulate the custom of the Prophet, also introduced a number of restrictions with regard to the trim of the moustache and the length of the beard.

"Bahá'u'lláh removed such limitations on one's apparel and beard. He leaves such matters to the "discretion" of the individual..."

(Notes to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, no. 175)
​

With that being said, there are a few small restrictions i.e.

"Shave not your heads; God hath adorned them with hair, and in this there are signs from the Lord of creation to those who reflect upon the requirements of nature. He, verily, is the God of strength and wisdom. Notwithstanding, it is not seemly to let the hair pass beyond the limit of the ears. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Lord of all worlds." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i Aqdas)​

"Shoghi Effendi has made clear that, unlike the prohibition on shaving the head, this law forbidding the growing of the hair beyond the lobe of the ear pertains only to men." (The Kitab-i Aqdas, notes)
​

Not clothing, as such, but it does deal with appearance / fashion / hair growth, just as Shariah law does in Islam as well.

This maybe a good starting point to examine the relationship between religion and laws. Its a huge topic and we’ve had some useful discussion.

Its worth mentioning the law in regards hair length for men is part of the Kitab-i-Aqdas written by Bahá’u’lláh in 1873. Its considered the most important of His works and a charter for a future world civilisation. This particular law along with others is non-binding or has not been enacted in regards Baha’is in the West. Its not a law I would ever think about but as a professional would avoid shoulder length hair anyhow.

An example of a law that is binding would be the requirement to recite one of three obligatory prayers each day. Usually I recite the short obligatory prayer between noon and sunset, first washing my hands and face and then facing the Qiblah.

Obligatory Baháʼí prayers - Wikipedia

It takes about a minute all up. Although it is a binding law it is entirely a matter between myself and God as to whether I say it or not. No Baha’i Assembly has ever tried to monitor whether or not Baha’is are saying their obligatory prayer or not. It is a profoundly personal matter.

Another law that is binding is the prohibition on consumption of alcohol. This wasn’t always binding on Baha’is on the West but is now. If a Baha’i chooses to disobey the law and consumes alcohol in the privacy of their home, a Baha’i Assembly would take no action. If on the other hand we had a member who was a known Baha’i who was repeatedly flagrantly drinking in public we might approach that individual. So once again even this law is a matter between the individual and God. I personally choose not to consume alcohol and it is perhaps the most significant change for me becoming a Baha’i. Most New Zealanders (about 80-90%) consume alcohol.

 

[Trailblazer]

Apologetics is an approach of defending a religious doctrine.

The Baha'i Faith has no doctrines. What we have are the Writings of Baha'u'llah that state that God sends Messengers throughout history, thus progressive revelation.

 

[Trailblazer]

We have enough of Divine Education through Hinduism and Buddha. No one can provide any better than that.

God can do whatever He wants to do whenever He wants to do it, because God is Omnipotent.