Problems with the Baha'i faith

[LuisDantas]

Why would a religion need miracles?

 

[1robin]

Hi, @1robin . You raise some enlightening points, although I happen to find the Bahai stances on those generally far more sound than yours.

Hello LD, I assume you will explain what you mean by "those" below.

A main reason why, it seems to me, is that I understand religion to be defined by its role, not by its scriptures or revelations.

We should never impose anything on a "religion". If a religion is true it comes from a transcendent source so far above ourselves that we must simply accept it as is.

That is a very real challenge for anyone who wants to seriously conside the variety of beliefs.

On the one hand, they are clearly at odds with each other far more often than not.

On the other hand, all or at least a lot of religion clearly is part of a greater whole despite that lack of mutual convergence, if only because they are all attempts at addressing many of the same concerns by much the same kind of beings.

It isn't a challenge it's an impossibility.

1. Christianity - Christ was crucified.
2. Islam - They neither killed nor crucified Christ.

By the law of non-contradiction both of those claims cannot be true, at most only one.

1. Christianity - It is appointed once for a man to die.
2. Hinduism - We keep dying and being reborn in other forms until we achieve enlightenment.

By the law of non-contradiction both of those claims cannot be true, at most only one.

No God worthy of the title and our worship can by as schizophrenic as to reveal self contradictions.

That model of single-choice religious truth has actually been perceived as unsuitable for a long time now. A simple yet effective challenge to it is the Parts of the Elephant story.

Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

Quite simply, this universe that we exist in does not support your single-truth model.

I will use your own analogy. The ontology of the elephant is singular, regardless of how many descriptions a group of blind men make. There is no conflict what so ever between the universe and an exclusive religion. Your not really even talking about theology. Your comparing oriental philosophy with western philosophy and declaring that the loser is the winner. If you want to debate pluralism philosophy verses exclusive philosophy that is fine but we need to drop everything else.

By taking religion seriously, mostly. A part of it is sincere effort, another is realizing that there is no shame in valuing understanding and wisdom over ready availability of often shallow answers.

Religions are not all part of some monolithic block which are all the same and stand or fall together. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc...... stand on their own merits exclusive to each other and are radically unique systems.

Any religion that relies too much on scripture is dooming itself. The Bahai rely on those texts somewhat more than I would advise, but it is to their credit that they know better than to treat religion as a glorified bet.

What your engaging in is IMO the most dangerous theological exercise theoretically possible. I refer to it as metaphysical speculation but historically speaking it is Gnosticism. Any God that would not clearly communicate all necessary revelation in one pure source is unworthy of worship. A God who would hide truths in mountains of manmade garbage and leave us stumbling around in the dark speculating about things we desperately need to know is not worth consideration.

As @Mandi above, I fail to see how such an oddity would lend any doctrine credibility. It is to their merit that they see other matters as more relevant to religious practice.

If I claimed to be able to turn lead into gold you would be right to be skeptical until I actually did it. We would be rightly skeptical of a man who claimed he would die but rise from death after 3 days if he didn't actually do so. Any claim to transcendent events, power, or entities will fail to persuade without evidence of such. Crowds of people demanded of Christ, the prophets, and even Muhammad demanding miracles. Only the biblical authors could actually perform them however.

 

[Vinayaka]

In Bahai view, whenever the Laws of the Religion becomes out of date, God Himself will replace it. It is at that Time the Manifestation of God appears to renew it. Bahai Faith is no exception. But Bahaullah wrote not to expect this until 1000 years later

So what you're saying is that Baha'u'llah's teachings are not yet out of date? We have to wait another 900 years or so?

 

[LuisDantas]

Hello LD, I assume you will explain what you mean by "those" below.

"Those" are the points that you raised in posts #30 and #31 of this thread. I addressed them in #35.

We should never impose anything on a "religion". If a religion is true it comes from a transcendent source so far above ourselves that we must simply accept it as is.

I am not sure that what you say here can make sense, even hypothetically.

In any case, I doubt that you are using an understanding of "religion" that I would conceivably recognize as valid.

It isn't a challenge it's an impossibility.

1. Christianity - Christ was crucified.
2. Islam - They neither killed nor crucified Christ.

By the law of non-contradiction both of those claims cannot be true, at most only one.

Well, yes. And, clearly, it falls on people to decide how much (if at all) they would care about such lesser, arguably undesirable points of faith.

Myself, I don't think there is much of a place in genuine religion for obsessing on such matters. Myth is just myth. It can not and will not rise in significance to the point that suits doctrine proper.

1. Christianity - It is appointed once for a man to die.
2. Hinduism - We keep dying and being reborn in other forms until we achieve enlightenment.

By the law of non-contradiction both of those claims cannot be true, at most only one.

No God worthy of the title and our worship can by as schizophrenic as to reveal self contradictions.

Indeed.

Religion is not about God. Nor is it supposed to be.

I will use your own analogy. The ontology of the elephant is singular, regardless of how many descriptions a group of blind men make. There is no conflict what so ever between the universe and an exclusive religion. Your not really even talking about theology. Your comparing oriental philosophy with western philosophy and declaring that the loser is the winner. If you want to debate pluralism philosophy verses exclusive philosophy that is fine but we need to drop everything else.

I don't think theology is at all useful, personally. At least not beyond the strictly personal sphere. If it has any religious worth, that worth has so far failed to become apparent to me.

Religions are not all part of some monolithic block which are all the same and stand or fall together.

Indeed.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc...... stand on their own merits exclusive to each other and are radically unique systems.

Christianity and Islaam are unrepresentative of religion, though. They do insist on their own exclusive truthfulness, and both are that much poorer for that.

Judaism, from what little I know of it, tends to take itself considerably more seriously than either.

What your engaging in is IMO the most dangerous theological exercise theoretically possible. I refer to it as metaphysical speculation but historically speaking it is Gnosticism. Any God that would not clearly communicate all necessary revelation in one pure source is unworthy of worship. A God who would hide truths in mountains of manmade garbage and leave us stumbling around in the dark speculating about things we desperately need to know is not worth consideration.

I largely agree. I am not at all fond of theology. I don't even advise using god-concepts at all. As you point out yourself, they are dangerous and not too rarely end up being silly as well.

There are people who manage to use conceptions of god constructively, but they are not altogether too many, and I stand unconvinced that they would not be better off without using those conceptions.

If I claimed to be able to turn lead into gold you would be right to be skeptical until I actually did it. We would be rightly skeptical of a man who claimed he would die but rise from death after 3 days if he didn't actually do so. Any claim to transcendent events, power, or entities will fail to persuade without evidence of such. Crowds of people demanded of Christ, the prophets, and even Muhammad demanding miracles. Only the biblical authors could actually perform them however.

That is both highly speculative and of only very tentative significance, though. It certainly lacks religious meaning, unless you want to propose that religion is mainly magic or thaumaturgy. And in that case, I will disagree most emphatically.

 

[LuisDantas]

In Bahai view, whenever the Laws of the Religion becomes out of date, God Himself will replace it. It is at that Time the Manifestation of God appears to renew it. Bahai Faith is no exception. But Bahaullah wrote not to expect this until 1000 years later

@Vinayaka already asked about this, and I will now add my own question: do you have anything to say about the role (if any) of caring for the validity of the doctrine that Bahais have during those centuries between Manifestations?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So what you're saying is that Baha'u'llah's teachings are not yet out of date? We have to wait another 900 years or so?

Yes. That is correct.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@Vinayaka already asked about this, and I will now add my own question: do you have anything to say about the role (if any) of caring for the validity of the doctrine that Bahais have during those centuries between Manifestations?

Yes, Bahaullah gave authority to Universal House of Justice, to apply His laws, whenever and wherever they should be applicable as per dicision of UHJ, and also, gave them authority to make new Laws, as long as they do not contradict with the Laws that Bahaullah already wrote.

 

[1robin]

"Those" are the points that you raised in posts #30 and #31 of this thread. I addressed them in #35.

Ok, then we ought to be up to date.

I am not sure that what you say here can make sense, even hypothetically.

In any case, I doubt that you are using an understanding of "religion" that I would conceivably recognize as valid.

Religion must either be man made or God made. If man made then its a philosophy and therefor far less important, if God made then it's "role" is determined by God not ourselves. So it is invalid to judge a religion by the role you believe it plays. It is either true or false, regardless of it's role.

Well, yes. And, clearly, it falls on people to decide how much (if at all) they would care about such lesser, arguably undesirable points of faith.

Myself, I don't think there is much of a place in genuine religion for obsessing on such matters. Myth is just myth. It can not and will not rise in significance to the point that suits doctrine proper.

Now your starting to make sense. You presume all faiths are myths and so you do not hold any of them to a high standard. Of course that makes your participation in this thread odd. Regardless, I hold that Christianity is the only true religion that currently applies (Judaism was true but no longer applies), and I hold that Baha'ism is untrue and gave an example. Which position are you countering?

Indeed.

Religion is not about God. Nor is it supposed to be.

Why does it seem you go with the fringe position at every opportunity. Are the 90% of us that disagree with every position you hold all wrong in every case? Almost every one of the thousands upon thousands of religions center upon one or even millions of God. What your describing is philosophy, not religion.

I don't think theology is at all useful, personally. At least not beyond the strictly personal sphere. If it has any religious worth, that worth has so far failed to become apparent to me.

What? How can a religion not have any religious worth. That is like saying a circle lacks any curves.

Indeed.

Yet you treat them equally as myths.

Christianity and Islaam are unrepresentative of religion, though. They do insist on their own exclusive truthfulness, and both are that much poorer for that.

They compose over 50% of the world's population and probably 80% of the religious population so your claim is bankrupt.

Judaism, from what little I know of it, tends to take itself considerably more seriously than either.

Israel is one of the most secular nations on Earth.

I largely agree. I am not at all fond of theology. I don't even advise using god-concepts at all. As you point out yourself, they are dangerous and not too rarely end up being silly as well.

So whether it is true or not you want to abolish the only possible foundation for racial equality, the sanctity of human life, inherent rights, objective morality, ultimate purpose, and ultimate meaning. You are a nihilist.

There are people who manage to use conceptions of god constructively, but they are not altogether too many, and I stand unconvinced that they would not be better off without using those conceptions.

Christian conservatives are the most generous demographic on Earth.

That is both highly speculative and of only very tentative significance, though. It certainly lacks religious meaning, unless you want to propose that religion is mainly magic or thaumaturgy. And in that case, I will disagree most emphatically.

Specific evidence for specific claims are the best you could possibly hope for and are the most appropriate basis for conclusions.

You are really off the grid aren't you?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So it is invalid to judge a religion by the role you believe it plays. It is either true or false, regardless of it's role.

I believe these quotes from the Bible shed some light:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Matt. 7:16-20

These verses tell us, for example if we want to know Bahaullah is a true or false prophet, we must look at fruits of His Revelation. Also, if it is a bad tree, it would not remain.

 

[1robin]

I believe these quotes from the Bible shed some light:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Matt. 7:16-20

Of course I agree that the biblical verses you quoted reflect truth, this one requires careful reading.

Those that belong to God should bear good fruit, but good fruit is not how they came to belong to God in the first place. Also, good fruit is not proof that a person belongs to God. I am sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Genghis Kahn did many acts most of us would consider to be good. The bible says that Satan appears as an angel of light.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Of course I agree that the biblical verses you quoted reflect truth, this one requires careful reading.

Those that belong to God should bear good fruit, but good fruit is not how they came to belong to God in the first place. Also, good fruit is not proof that a person belongs to God. I am sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Genghis Kahn did many acts most of us would consider to be good. The bible says that Satan appears as an angel of light.

This verse is only talking about Prophets though. So, i believe it should only be applicable to recognition of Prophets.
In your opinion, can we have a false prophet, who would have only good fruits, without any bad fruits?

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok, then we ought to be up to date.

Religion must either be man made or God made. If man made then its a philosophy and therefor far less important, if God made then it's "role" is determined by God not ourselves. So it is invalid to judge a religion by the role you believe it plays. It is either true or false, regardless of it's role.

Sorry, but it it seems to me that you are missing the point of both religion and God here.

Even if we could agree that there is such a thing as "God-made religion", that would still not deny the plain fact that religion is a human activity. It is supposed to stand or fall on its own merits, not those of its claims of supposedly supernatural origin.

Religion is exactly as true (or as false) as the discernment of its practicioners enable it to be at any given time and place. No more and no less.

Now your starting to make sense. You presume all faiths are myths

Hardly. Myth has a constructive role to enforce, as has religion (or as you seem to call it here, "faith"). But as I stated above, I do not brand whole religions as "true" (or even as false) except to the extent that the actual practice and understandings justify such judgements.

And that truthfulness is a quality that has to be constantly renewed and regained by the exertion of mental faculties, choices and actions. It is not some form of warranty that could even conceivably be granted by virtue of historical origin. Unless we are talking about a dead doctrine, I suppose.

and so you do not hold any of them to a high standard.

That is not true, as just explained. It is true that I do not think very highly of doctrines that put much of their validity as a function of their supposedly divine origins, though.

Of course that makes your participation in this thread odd.

It will probably appear that way to one who presumes religion to be necessarily emanated from God.

Regardless, I hold that Christianity is the only true religion that currently applies (Judaism was true but no longer applies), and I hold that Baha'ism is untrue and gave an example. Which position are you countering?

Both. I don't acknowledge your criteria for validity of religion as useful, even hypothetically.

Your criteria actually contradicts what I understand to be commonly agreed qualities of the Christian God, such as supreme wisdom, supreme moral virtue, and omnipresence.

Why does it seem you go with the fringe position at every opportunity.

In fairness, that is a common and very popular mistake. I guess that motivates me to counter it often.

Are the 90% of us that disagree with every position you hold all wrong in every case?

No, probably not every case. Good thing I am not running for an elective office, though. Then again, seeing who ends up being elected these days, that is probably no big loss for me.

Feel free to discuss specific cases, anyway.

Almost every one of the thousands upon thousands of religions center upon one or even millions of God. What your describing is philosophy, not religion.

I so disagree. I don't think you use a very useful (or for that matter very informed or very ambitious) understanding of religion. There so much more to religion than plain reliance on God!

Also, as it turns out, there is more religious merit in polytheism than in (Abrahamic) monotheism. It is just a better starting point for religious doctrine to develop, and less vulnerable to some common doctrinary mistakes.

What? How can a religion not have any religious worth. That is like saying a circle lacks any curves.

Religions can lose their way and their validity, and do. That is even before considering whether it is possible to reach a consensus on what should be called a religion and what should not (which I doubt).

For a religion to have worth, it must be properly and constantly cared for, updated and expanded by adherents of sincere effort and sufficient wisdom and skill. Religion is living dharma, not static doctrine.

Yet you treat them equally as myths.

Oh, no. That is not at all what I said. I just agreed that religions do not all stand or fall together.

They compose over 50% of the world's population and probably 80% of the religious population so your claim is bankrupt.

With all due respect, you have no authority whatsoever to make that call. And I am not about to lend you that authority either.

Your implication that somehow other doctrines are adhered to by "less religious people" is also entirely unwarranted, and IMO quite misleading.

Israel is one of the most secular nations on Earth.

That may well be (although I understand that to be very arguable). For various reasons, that does not weight on my claim in any way, though. Judaism is not Israel.

So whether it is true or not you want to abolish the only possible foundation for racial equality, the sanctity of human life, inherent rights, objective morality, ultimate purpose, and ultimate meaning. You are a nihilist.

Wow. You understand neither religion nor morality and certainly not my stances either, yet you do not let that stop you from boldly speaking insulting nonsense regarding all three entities.

That is almost admirable in its recklessness. It is silly enough to be forgivable, too.

Christian conservatives are the most generous demographic on Earth.

That is neither true nor related to what I had said.

Specific evidence for specific claims are the best you could possibly hope for and are the most appropriate basis for conclusions.

Uh, what are you even talking about?

You are really off the grid aren't you?

That is my line, actually.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes. That is correct.

What are his thoughts on computers, on AIDS, on homosexuality, on ISIS, and on nuclear bombs? Please provide direct quotes of Baha'u'llah on these topics, I'm interested on what he has to say.

 

[Windwalker]

In Bahai view, whenever the Laws of the Religion becomes out of date, God Himself will replace it. It is at that Time the Manifestation of God appears to renew it. Bahai Faith is no exception. But Bahaullah wrote not to expect this until 1000 years later

Which is precisely the problem. We evolve a whole lot faster than that, which is why the information spoken about in these prophecies of 100 years ago are hugely out of step. Truth unfolds at dizzying rates, not once every 1000 years.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In Bahai view, whenever the Laws of the Religion becomes out of date, God Himself will replace it. It is at that Time the Manifestation of God appears to renew it. Bahai Faith is no exception. But Bahaullah wrote not to expect this until 1000 years later

No religion is out of date.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Which is precisely the problem. We evolve a whole lot faster than that, which is why the information spoken about in these prophecies of 100 years ago are hugely out of step. Truth unfolds at dizzying rates, not once every 1000 years.

As a matter of fact, Bahaullah agrees with you. This why, He wrote we must have Universal House of Justice:


"Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the House of Justice that the members thereof may act according to the needs and requirements of the time. "– Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, pp. 128-129.

"Those matters of major importance which constitute the foundation of the Law of God are explicitly recorded in the Text, but subsidiary laws are left to the House of Justice. The wisdom of this is that the times never remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute of this world, and of time and place. "– Abdu’l-Baha, cited in Wellsprings of Guidance, pp. 84-86.

 

[Windwalker]

If a religion is true it comes from a transcendent source so far above ourselves that we must simply accept it as is.

Which is the best description of culture I've seen to date. People just accept what their cultures tell them is truth, and it too is far above the individual. Religion is a product of culture. Religion is a part of culture. Culture too doesn't like it when it's members question its truths. It threatens those who don't like change within it, who then in turn threaten those who want change. Oh, the patterns are obvious.

 

[1robin]

This verse is only talking about Prophets though. So, i believe it should only be applicable to recognition of Prophets.
In your opinion, can we have a false prophet, who would have only good fruits, without any bad fruits?

I do not think the appearance of good fruit (works) is restricted to only prophets but lets discuss it in the context of prophets anyway for simplicities sake.

1. Only God can truly know the future because only God is independent of time.
2. “Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure,’” (Isaiah 46:9–10)
3. Yes there can be false prophets, and I believe there are two types of false prophets.
A. The type that are making short range predictions based on rare data or because they are experts in
certain fields. For example insider trading.
B. Or people who make actual prophecies but they do not come true.

If I was considering whether someone or some text was prophetic.
1. I would look at the exactness (or detail) in the prophecy.
2. I would make sure that the prediction and the event were far enough apart that it would actually require knowledge that the prophet himself did not have access to.
3. That it was repeatable.

I think if a person or text passed all three tests then you could virtually eliminate false prophets. The bible has 2500 prophecies and I do not know of one that has failed to be fulfilled as predicted.

 

[1robin]

Which is the best description of culture I've seen to date. People just accept what their cultures tell them is truth, and it too is far above the individual. Religion is a product of culture. Religion is a part of culture. Culture too doesn't like it when it's members question its truths. It threatens those who don't like change within it, who then in turn threaten those who want change. Oh, the patterns are obvious.

Yes people do tend to follow what they are surrounded by but that was not the argument I made nor does it say anything about whether any religion is true or not. Your confusing epistemology (how we come to know of a thing) with ontology (what the nature of the things actually is). For example I could believe that 2 + 2 = 4 because I read it on the back of a box of cereal but it would still be right.

So the nature of a religion is unrelated to why or how we come to believe in it. The nature of a God based religion should hold complete sovereignty over it's followers. IOW if a person has faith in a religion, he should submit himself to it rather than the other way around, regardless of how he came to believe in it.

Despite the fact that most people are heavily influenced by their faith, I find Christians to be the most scrutinizing of people. Unlike Islam there is no potential death penalty for question our faith, and entire libraries are filled with professional argumentation concerning the faith. I am short on time or I would list the many ways that Christianity is more resistant to cultural collusion compared to most faiths, sufficient to say for now that the bible is the most scrutinized book ever written.

 

[CG Didymus]

Just a few comments..

Baha'is do recognize there can be Manifestations that we do not know about that could have influenced civilizations or cultures that we don't fully know about...

As Adrian pointed out there is actually very little mention of Krishna ... Abdul-Baha made a few remarks about the Buddha and Krishna while He was in Paris.. It's not like were trying to re-write Hinduism.

The part of the Faith that is non-Abrahamic is that we also recognize Zoroaster and observe Naw-Ruz along with Shiah Muslims. I've also however discovered that there are similarities between the Zand language and ancient Vedic terms.. THe teachings of Zoroaster regarding Good Mind, Good Actions, etc. are also similar to the Eight fold Path mentioned in early Buddhism. Baha'u'llah also has roots in the province of Mazandaran and the province of Nur which was an area of Persia with strong Zoroastrian influences. An interesting connection was brought up by John Clifford Holt in his translation of the Anagatavamssa Desana where he suggests a connection with the beginnings of the Maitreya "cult" and Zoroastrian soteriological beliefs concerning Saosyant in ancient north India .. this is found on page 2 of the introduction to the Anagatavamsa.

As to Muhammad.. I've found there's a lot of misinformation and prejudice in the West toward Islam and this goes back for centuries... Baha'is are not Muslims however we recognize Muhammad as a Manifestation and accept the Qur'an as a revelation a sacred scripture. The Baha'i Faith is the only religion in relatively modern times that has risen in Muslim countries that is independent of Muslim laws. The Faith has it's own revealed scripture.. we call the Writings and it's own laws found in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. We also accept the Writings of the Bab as revealed Holy Books.. The Writings of the Bab have not as yet been fully translated.

I would say the main thrust of the Faith in modern society is to reduce prejudices caused by racial and religious differences in the past and to recognize some of things we all have in common and that's why we encourage participation in inter-faith activities on a local and international level. We also have NonGovernmental Org. status as advisors with United Nations committees and so on.. ultimately we hope a representative world parliament and international court of arbitration can reduce conflicts and bring an end to war. Baha'is also work to raise the status of women so they can share opportunities with men in education and vocations.

It's easy to say on the surface that you believe all the religions are one, however when Baha'is go into what they believe about the other religions, they go through several things they really don't believe are true in those other religions. And then, Baha'is try and explain why those things aren't true. This is the problem.

Literal belief in the Bible? Not true. Several big issues for "Bible believing" Christians would be no literal Satan, no physical resurrection of Jesus or anybody. Even healings are made symbolic by saying the person was "spiritually" blind, and Jesus opened their spiritual eye, so they could see the light.

A big issue with the Baha'i interpretation of Hinduism is saying that there is no reincarnation. We've been going 'round and 'round with this. So all we can say is that all religions are one when put through the strainer of what Baha'u'llah says is true about the different religions.

But it's not only him, the "manifestation". It's also his "infallible" son Abdul Baha. Whatever he has said about a religion has become the truth about that religion, regardless of what the followers of that religion say they believe.