• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The irony in the Baha'i faith

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
But the guru is important.
:) Guru is important but Hinduism does not bar difference with the guru. For us Hindus, it is not always necessary for us to agree to what a guru says, just like a modern student may differ from the views of his teacher in a college or university. We have the example of Sage Yajnavalkya (pupil) differing from Sage Vaishampayana (teacher). Vaishampayana's version is known as Krishna (Black) YajurVeda, while that of Yajnavalkya is known as Shukla (White) YajurVeda. I consider Buddha and Sankara as my gurus, but differ from both of them in finer details.

Adrian said "In addition to God we can pray to our ancestors and those who have passed to the next world": I do not believe in any next world, but respect to teachers and ancestors is a must for a Hindu. It does not matter whether their views are similar to views that you hold or are different. For example, Madhvacharya's views are nearly opposite to what views I hold, but even then I respect Madhvacharya completely. This is as if you were a believer in Big Bang, but you will still respect Edwin Hubble of the Steady-State theory. His work aided us to arrive at Big Bang.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
:) Guru is important but Hinduism does not bar difference with the guru. For us Hindus, it is not always necessary for us to agree to what a guru says, just like a modern student may differ from the views of his teacher in a college or university. We have the example of Sage Yajnavalkya (pupil) differing from Sage Vaishampayana (teacher). Vaishampayana's version is known as Krishna (Black) YajurVeda, while that of Yajnavalkya is known as Shukla (White) YajurVeda. I consider Buddha and Sankara as my gurus, but differ from both of them in finer details.

Adrian said "In addition to God we can pray to our ancestors and those who have passed to the next world": I do not believe in any next world, but respect to teachers and ancestors is a must for a Hindu. It does not matter whether their views are similar to views that you hold or are different. For example, Madhvacharya's views are nearly opposite to what views I hold, but even then I respect Madhvacharya completely. This is as if you were a believer in Big Bang, but you will still respect Edwin Hubble of the Steady-State theory. His work aided us to arrive at Big Bang.

Hmm. Interesting. I'll chew on this, thank you.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I’ll try to explain again the point I wanted to make. There is a worldwide community called “the Baha’i Faith,” whose supreme council is seated on Mount Carmel in Israel. The most widespread and visible common interest of that community’s members is practicing what their supreme council is promoting, which is learning to work side by side with neighbors, in thousands of neighborhoods and villages around the world, to build a healthier, happier and more loving community life.

What I see people calling “the Baha’i Faith” in Internet discussions is the personal belief systems, snd the attitudes and behavior, of a statistically insignificant self-selected sample of its members whose idea of promoting their religion never includes any mention of what their supreme council has been promoting most of all for more than 20 years, and what its communities around the world have been doing most of all, in response to that call.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
If I were to choose an Abrahamic religion, however, it would be Baha'i if it weren't for the punctuation.
In what way Bahais are any different from Jesus or Mohammad. Those two illuminaries also did not negate what had come earlier, but only added to it. The same was done by Joseph Smith, Bahaullah; and after Bhaullah by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas. That is the way it is with the Abrahamic religions. Everytime a new teacher crops up, they choose a new name. Joseph Smith was a Later Day Saint, Bahaullah was a manifestation and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Mahdi. Now they have a debate whether Bab was a Mahdi (for Bahais) or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Mahdi. What has actually happened is that we have more sects and religions to fight each other. Christians have the Later Day Saints, and the World has Bahais and Ahmadiyyas to add to the confusion of Abrahamic religions.
Christian churches have creeds, statements of beliefs that their members recite if and when they attend a service. There’s nothing like that in the Baha’i community as it is defined by the Universal House of Justice.
You may recite prayer of any religion, but in the end you cannot differ from what Bahaullah said and you cannot deny that Bahaullah was the latest manifestation of Allah. Why you do that is because you want ingress into religions from where you want to get your adherents, and then say that what their founders have said is now redundant and should be replaced by what Bahaullah said, but you would completely deny the Ahmadiyyas. Basically you want "BAHAI" epithet for all people in the world. Not very different from what Christians and Muslims want. How are you going to bring peace to the world with this kind of attitude?
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Whoa there. An atheist would have to lie to enroll wouldn’t he? There have always been declarations to be made for enrollment.
Right. Jim has already listed them in his post 235. Not only Bahaullah, but you have to accept the position of his son, Abdul Baha, and his great grandson Shoghi Effendi, and that of their controlling body, named ’House of Justice’. You would need to be subservient to all of them.
Christ has returned in the name of Bahaullah, and has revealed a correct interpretation?
Yeah, Bahaullah is not only just the returning Jesus Christ, but he is also the returning Zoroaster (Saoshyant), the returning Krishna (Kalki) and the returning Buddha (Maireya) - I wonder why is he not the returning Mohammad too? :D
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I’ll try to explain again the point I wanted to make. There is a worldwide community called “the Baha’i Faith,” whose supreme council is seated on Mount Carmel in Israel. The most widespread and visible common interest of that community’s members is practicing what their supreme council is promoting, which is learning to work side by side with neighbors, in thousands of neighborhoods and villages around the world, to build a healthier, happier and more loving community life.

What I see people calling “the Baha’i Faith” in Internet discussions is the personal belief systems, snd the attitudes and behavior, of a statistically insignificant self-selected sample of its members whose idea of promoting their religion never includes any mention of what their supreme council has been promoting most of all for more than 20 years, and what its communities around the world have been doing most of all, in response that call.

It seems as if you are telling us that many Bahais don't believe in the religious beliefs of Bahai, just the secular administration of Bahai.
Yes? No?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
- wonder why is he not the returning Mohammad too? :D
The Bab is the returning Mohammed and 12th imam in Baha'i beliefs.

From the Baha'i Reference Library:

The hostility aroused by the claim of Bábhood was redoubled when the young reformer proceeded to declare that He was Himself the Mihdí (Mahdi) Whose coming Muḥammad had foretold. The Shí’ihs identified this Mihdí with the 12th Imám 1 who, according to their beliefs, had mysteriously disappeared from the sight of men about a thousand years previously.

…….

But the Báb did not stop even with the claim of Mihdíhood. He adopted the sacred title of “Nuqṭiyiúlá” or “Primal Point.” This was a title applied to Muḥammad Himself by His followers.

Source Link
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
You mean fake Christians and fake Bahais? Why should anyone be like that? Munafiqun? Do not have courage enough to accept and declare that they do not believe what their religion wants them to believe? Will such persons loose their culture if they were not members of their churches and mosques? IMHO, a person's culture (Samskaras in Sanskrit) is tougher than that, it is ingrained deeper.

Whoa there. An atheist would have to lie to enroll wouldn’t he? There have always been declarations to be made for enrollment.

Hinduism tolerates atheism as does Christianity and the Baha’i Faith.

Belief in God is a very personal matter. We all have different ideas and concepts about God. One of the most important theistic concepts in the Baha’i Faith is God is an unknowable essence. If someone becomes a Baha’i and moves from Theism to atheism its really a private matter. Its no grounds for an Baha’i institution to intervene. A religion shouldn’t have thought police.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
BTW, why do Bahais term their place of worship as a 'temple'? Bahais forked from Islam, Bahai name for their Supreme being is Allah (Bahaullah). Is the term 'mosque' wrong for any reason? You want to distance from Muslims? In the thousands of posts in this forum, I have not seen even one Bahai to use the word 'Allah'. Do you hate to use the word 'Allah'? Or is it to deceive the Christians that you have nothing to do with 'Allah'?

The correct term for a Baha’i temple or house of worship is a Mas͟hriqu'l-Ad͟hkár (Arabic: مشرق اﻻذكار‎ "Dawning-place of the remembrance of God"). It was first mentioned by Bahá’u’lláh in His book of laws the Kitab-i-Aqdas. This institution was elaborated on by both Bahá’u’lláh and Abdul-Baha.

A House of Worship should be built that its doors must be open to all regardless of religion, or any other distinction. The Baháʼí laws emphasize that the spirit of the House of Worship must be a gathering place where people of all religions may worship God without denominational restrictions. So I suspect House of Worship or Temple emphasises both it being open to all and a place of worship. Words like Mosque, Pagoda, Church and Synagogue too closely associate with one religion.

Baháʼí House of Worship - Wikipedia

I may use the word Allah if I’m speaking to a Muslim. Generally I’m personally most comfortable with God. The Baha’is on this forum are all from a Christian background so we’re much more comfortable talking to Christians than Muslims. Its very cultural. I’m a very Christian Baha’i because I was a Christian first and then accepted Bahá’u’lláh second. I’ve become increasingly comfortable with Islam too. Many Christians and Westerners really struggle with Islam so I would tread carefully before raising Islam as a topic for conversation. There’s no deception. Its cultural. When in Rome do as the Romans do. Everyone knows that.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually there is no reason to even believe in the existence of Yugas and as a person of science and as an atheist, I completely reject it. Satya Yuga is believe to have started 4,315,000 years ago. Do they mean that there were Homo sapiens sapiens at that time? At that time only Australopithecines (5.6 - 1.2 mya) existed. So all this talk of yugas and Bahaullah being the Kalki in Kali Yuga comes to a naught. Yukteshwar and Yogananda were not aware of that (there was no Wikipedia at that time) and Jaggi Vasudev also does not know that.

You believe in Krishna, Buddha and Jesus only to add at the end that Bahaullah has something new from his non-existent Allah - for your own benefit.

afarensis.jpg
mass_height.300a.jpg
site_dist.300a.jpg

See more Australopithecines at: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=A...0rBSgQ_AUoAXoECBMQAw&biw=1600&bih=790#imgrc=_

Yeah, science says what science says.

The first book of the Hebrew Bible Genesis assigns impossible years to the age of characters. Its not to be taken literally. Man can’t live too much beyond 120 years of age. That’s not going to change dramatically in the future and has never been more than that in the past. Of course if science categorically proves something that religion states then go with the science. So if the Young Earth Christians start talking about an earth that’s no more than 10,000 years old, they have interpreted their scriptures literally. Science categorically disproves a young earth.

But there are cycles and turning points in history. Call them Yugas, call them what you want.

So human civilization degenerates spiritually during the Kali Yuga. Common attributes and consequences are spiritual bankruptcy, mindless hedonism, breakdown of all social structure, greed and materialism, unrestricted egotism, afflictions and maladies of mind and body.

The soul of India seems damaged through the partition after the British moved out. I imagine a few old wounds have resurfaced after religious prejudice and animosity rests its head again. Those are the kind of signs that may characterise the Kali-yuga. However you spin it, there’s always cycles and eras in human history characterised by good or evil. As long as we’re on the right side of the ledger what does it matter what country your from, which race you are or if you’re theistic or not. What matters is we’re kind and compassionate and do no harm.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Yeah, science says what science says.

So human civilization degenerates spiritually during the Kali Yuga. Common attributes and consequences are spiritual bankruptcy, mindless hedonism, breakdown of all social structure, greed and materialism, unrestricted egotism, afflictions and maladies of mind and body.

The soul of India seems damaged through the partition after the British moved out.
Yeah, science says what science says. But Allah created Adam from glob of soil and Eve from his rib.

Human civilizations have always been the same. They were no better or worse anytime in history. What is the degeneration now which did not exist in the past? There is no damage to the soul of India. We are doing as well as at any other time in history, partition or no partition.
But the Báb did not stop even with the claim of Mihdíhood. He adopted the sacred title of “Nuqṭiyiúlá” or “Primal Point.” This was a title applied to Muḥammad Himself by His followers.
Yes, anyone can claim to be anything if one is not required to give any proof. That is what has been happening in Abrahamic religions all the time. Moses claimed to have seen the hind part of YHWH, Zoroaster said that he talked with Ahur Mazda, Jesus said he was the son as well as the God, Mohammad said that he was the messenger, Joseph Smith said that he was a saint, Bahaullah said that he was the manifestation, and Bab and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said that they were the Mahdis.
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
The soul of India seems damaged through the partition after the British moved out.

It was damaged long before the British came and left. Arguably the largest genocide on the face of the planet occurred. The Islamic invasions were brutal. Estimates go as high as 10 million deaths, even higher. Hindu temples totally destroyed number around 100 000. The western historians may ignore it, but Indians, particularly Hindus, haven't forgotten.

How long will it be before Hitler's holocaust has no effect on the victim's psyche?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
No, Vinayaka, we have the strength to weather all storms.
Hinduism tolerates atheism as does Christianity and the Baha’i Faith.
Again, no. To say that Hinduism tolerates atheism is not correct. Atheism is actually a part of Hinduism and has been around in Hinduism since the time of Vedas. It is difficult for people from Abrahamics religions to visualize the breadth of Hinduism.
 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Hinduism tolerates atheism as does Christianity and the Baha’i Faith.

Belief in God is a very personal matter. We all have different ideas and concepts about God. One of the most important theistic concepts in the Baha’i Faith is God is an unknowable essence. If someone becomes a Baha’i and moves from Theism to atheism its really a private matter. Its no grounds for an Baha’i institution to intervene. A religion shouldn’t have thought police.
Well one can harbor any thoughts internally and nobody is going to play mind reader but if a Baha'i publicly pronounces atheism he will be counseled and if he continues he will be excluded from official membership.

I would argue an atheist should not want to be a Baha'i as belief in God and divine revelations and manifestations are just too central and prominent in the Faith.

I am sure the Universal House of Justice (Baha'i 1.0) would agree with my take here.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I don't get that from the Baha'i. Look at the Baha'i on this thread - all friendly, polite, constructive, etc.. To my knowledge, I've never encountered one anywhere but RF, but all but one have been decent people, some quite bright.

I'm not a Baha'i because I'm an atheist, which apparently isn't a barrier, but also because I don't have a place for religion in my life. My worldview, secular humanism, meets my needs for a rational, empirical, and compassionate approach to life.

If I were to choose an Abrahamic religion, however, it would be Baha'i if it weren't for the punctuation. This post is my annual allotment of "Baha'is," and forget writing out Baháʼu'lláh (that was a copy-and-paste).
Yes, the punctuation. I have a tough time with the flowery poetic writings. But really, I agree with Sirona. Baha'is believe and disbelieve in the other religions at the same time. That's irritating. They "believe" in some mysterious "original" teachings of a prophet, but they don't believe in what religions believe in now... or what they have traditionally believed in.

Somehow "originally" Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and the rest all had the same or similar teachings from the one true God? But then the followers misinterpreted those teachings and then added false "traditions" into the religion? That's irritating. That's pretty much saying that not one of the older religions has the truth. That's saying that all the other religions have gotten things wrong and need to get back to the truth they once had by listening to the teachings of the Baha'is. That's irritating. Maybe true. Maybe not, but still irritating.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Well one can harbor any thoughts internally and nobody is going to play mind reader but if a Baha'i publicly pronounces atheism he will be counseled and if he continues he will be excluded from official membership.

I would argue an atheist should not want to be a Baha'i as belief in God and divine revelations and manifestations are just too central and prominent in the Faith.

I am sure the Universal House of Justice (Baha'i 1.0) would agree with my take here.

In my 30 years of involvement with the Baha’i community I’ve never heard of anyone being excluded because they are an atheist. Its not really an area amenable to counselling. You can’t really talk someone in to be a theist anymore than you can talk them into being an atheist. You could try for sure.

As an assistant for protection I would completely avoid counselling an atheist Baha’i about ‘correct’ Baha’i beliefs. I would befriend the person as I would anyone else and hope and pray they catch the spark of faith. If they never do that shouldn’t diminish my love for that person.

There is a small movement in the Baha’i Faith mostly vocal on the Internet and on discussion groups such as these. It certainly involves an alternative understanding of God and therefore Bahá’u’lláh and His successors. Bahá’u’lláh is seen as an inspired mystic and thinker. Some of what He had to say was culturally influenced at that time and certain aspects of Baha’i culture need to change. For example there should be women on the Universal House of Justice and homosexuality be accorded the same status as heterosexuality. That is an area I’m more likely to have a conversation about with whoever identifies as being a Baha’i yet has these beliefs. However I don’t see that counselling is likely to have much affect on some individuals particularly if they’ve been a Baha’i for a long time and are familiar with all the relevant writings, arguments and counter arguments.

Should the Baha’i Assemblys get involved and formally meet with such an individual? It would be unwise in most instances. Should their membership be removed? Only in extreme cases and I have had closer involvement than most with one such scenario. Its very rare and has happened twice in my country to my knowledge. Then Baha’is we’re still free to associate with the person or not. One even contributes to RF from time to time and considers himself a Baha’i. None of the Baha’is here shun him.

In regards atheism, if any Baha’i here makes a public declaration of being an atheist, it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. The Baha’i institutions have much more important things to be concerned about.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
In my 30 years of involvement with the Baha’i community I’ve never heard of anyone being excluded because they are an atheist. Its not really an area amenable to counselling. You can’t really talk someone in to be a theist anymore than you can talk them into being an atheist. You could try for sure.
(for informational purposes here: I have served on the Local Spiritual Assembly (LSA) of probably the largest Baha'i community in my state)

The way I understood things to work is that if an issue is brought to the attention of the LSA such as a member publicly speaking for and promoting atheism, the LSA is to council the person and inform them that this is not acceptable. If the person does not agree to mend their ways or continues with the same behavior the LSA should take action to remove their membership and other members are instructed to not associate with that member.

I agree that the LSA is unlikely to convince an atheist to become a theist and in that case the person should be removed from membership. It also seems odd to me that the removed member would ever still want to be an active member.

I would befriend the person as I would anyone else and hope and pray they catch the spark of faith.
I believe your approach is the best one in this case HOWEVER it is not the approach supported by the Baha'i Faith which would call for the members not to associate with this person.
There is a small movement in the Baha’i Faith mostly vocal on the Internet and on discussion groups such as these. It certainly involves an alternative understanding of God and therefore Bahá’u’lláh and His successors. Bahá’u’lláh is seen as an inspired mystic and thinker. Some of what He had to say was culturally influenced at that time and certain aspects of Baha’i culture need to change. For example there should be women on the Universal House of Justice and homosexuality be accorded the same status as heterosexuality. That is an area I’m more likely to have a conversation about with whoever identifies as being a Baha’i yet has these beliefs. However I don’t see that counselling is likely to have much affect on some individuals particularly if they’ve been a Baha’i for a long time and are familiar with all the relevant writings, arguments and counter arguments.

Should the Baha’i Assemblys get involved and formally meet with such an individual? It would be unwise in most instances. Should their membership be removed? Only in extreme cases and I have had closer involvement than most with one such scenario. Its very rare and has happened twice in my country to my knowledge. Then Baha’is we’re still free to associate with the person or not. One even contributes to RF from time to time and considers himself a Baha’i. None of the Baha’is here shun him.

In regards atheism, if any Baha’i here makes a public declaration of being an atheist, it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. The Baha’i institutions have much more important things to be concerned about.
Well you present the attitudes you and I of the western liberal world think are best. Let's call your preferred approach Baha'i 2.0.

When push comes to shove the 1.0 Baha'is and the 2.0 Baha'is can not co-exist. The 2.0 Baha'is can certainly accept the 1.0 Baha'is but not vice versa. The philosophy of the organizational structure is to guard against schisms and produce a singular united Baha'i Faith. The strict readings of the Faith's core sources particularly the Guardian's do support Baha'i 1.0 if push comes to shove. As the Baha'i 1.0 strength in the western world is weak, the conflict is not much realized today but the hope for further growth of both factions together doesn't seem feasible.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Individual beliefs doesn't change the foundational beliefs, it just means Hindus interpret it differently. While one Hindu may believe in X incarnation and another Hindu Y, it's the same god (whether or not someone believes in "that" god doesn't negate whether it [bad terms] exists or not). I wouldn't go by what people individually believe but the foundational principles and god is one of them.

Although I have produced a list of beliefs for Hinduism, there are no foundational beliefs for Hinduism.

According to the link 'Hinduism, the world's oldest religion, has no beginning--it precedes recorded history. It has no human founder.'

So one Hindu may claim what Hindu is founded on or claim X and Y is a foundational belief. The only thing we know for certain is another Hindu will make contrary statements and claims. Hinduism is diverse and there are no set of core beliefs held by all Hindus.

That doesn't negative Hindus have foundational beliefs regardless how or if they believe in them or not. Just because X Hindu doesn't believe in god and Y Hindu does, they both still acknowledge the idea or reality of this god in Hindu theology regardless how they view it.

So what is the difference between an atheist saying Genesis in the Bible is pure myth and a young earth Christian claiming the Bible is literally true?

It could be. I know Hindus say they don't depend on scriptures as an authority of a whole. I do remember one person who practices here say she/he does look to scriptures for support while most say they don't. It's not really the authenticity of them, in my opinion, but whether they enhance the practice. But the guru is important.

There isn't an agreed on body of scriptures that all Hindus regard as sacred and authoritative and Aups comments about gurus is helpful.

I'm not too sure if reincarnation is true; but, it makes more sense to me than abrahamic beliefs. What is the nature of reincarnationm (the allegory) to bahai view?

There is no official Baha'i position about reincarnation other than we don't believe its literally true.

This is something new. Hmm. I wouldn't have thought praying to ancestors is in Bahai. Is that an Islamic cultural practice (Muslim, etc) or specific to bahai?

Honouring one's parents goes back to the 10 commandments in Judaism and its there is Islam too.

As for the Baha'i perspective:

O Lord! In this Most Great Dispensation Thou dost accept the intercession of children in behalf of their parents. This is one of the special infinite bestowals of this Dispensation. Therefore, O Thou kind Lord, accept the request of this Thy servant at the threshold of Thy singleness and submerge his father in the ocean of Thy grace, because this son hath arisen to render Thee service and is exerting effort at all times in the pathway of Thy love, Verily, Thou art the Giver, the Forgiver and the Kind! Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i Prayers, p. 64.

Praying for Our Parents

Regardless of Hindus individual perspectives, the idea or reality of god is still a foundation in Hindu theology. Same as christians (like with what you said about the catholic church). The Eucharist is still christ regardless if one church knows its nature and the other one things it's a mystery. The theology of creator and Eucharist in catholic churches are present.

You would need to ask the Hindus about how they see God and god. Aup is a strong atheist.

I'm sure all abrahamic beliefs believe in a creator. The nature of the creator may vary from person to person; but, that doesn't negate the existence of one.

Monotheism is certainly a foundation of the Abrahamic Faiths. We can't make the same definitive statements about Hinduism.

Since bahai believe that these are from the same source, can you define what god is from a bahai point of view to which I can understand the foundation (say god) of these two faiths?

Fourth time you have asked.:D The problem is God for Baha'is is an Unknowable Essence and you'll have diverse answers from Hindus depending on who you ask.

Everything else above is just matter of agreement or disagreement. I'm not Hindu, so I can only defend what I learned from others and most of it is just how I interpret it from them.

I'm not attacking or criticisming Hinduism. Just highlighting points where there is likley to be common ground and those areas where there won't be.

Since bahai believe in the same god what is that god? If they can't tell me what it is (their belief in it is irrelevant), I'm sure you can (*from bahai view not theirs)?

These links may be a useful starting point.

God in the Baháʼí Faith - Wikipedia

An Unknowable God | What Bahá’ís Believe
 
Top