What if the the Baha'i Faith were right?

[BruceDLimber]

Bahaism is an attempt to please everyone.

NONSENSE!

If we were merely trying to "please everyone," we'd have laws and teachings a lot more "popular" and easy to follow than we in fact do have!

So sorry, but I'm afraid your statement ranks as mere hot air.

You also completely ignore the fact that some of our teachings are so new that they aren't found in the scriptures of the older religions.
Peace,

Bruce

 

[lew0049]

The assumption in this argument is that God wants unity among mankind, but unity doesn't mean mankind is closer to truth. I'm sorry, but too many prophets according to the Baha faith make specific mutually exclusive claims. Claims that are the foundation to their teachings. Saying that God only revealed as much to each particular prophet as was needed/wanted at the time makes absolutely no sense IF the revelation stated was mutual exclusive from past prophets.

 

[Popeyesays]

The assumption in this argument is that God wants unity among mankind, but unity doesn't mean mankind is closer to truth. I'm sorry, but too many prophets according to the Baha faith make specific mutually exclusive claims. Claims that are the foundation to their teachings. Saying that God only revealed as much to each particular prophet as was needed/wanted at the time makes absolutely no sense IF the revelation stated was mutual exclusive from past prophets.

I would agree. So therefore the claims of Revelation are NOT mutually exclusive from past Prophets.

One Voice, One Source, One God.

You have reasoned yourself right into being Baha`i. Where shall I send the declaration card?

Regards,
Scott

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

I'm sorry, but too many prophets according to the Baha faith make specific mutually exclusive claims. Claims that are the foundation to their teachings. Saying that God only revealed as much to each particular prophet as was needed/wanted at the time makes absolutely no sense IF the revelation stated was mutual exclusive from past prophets.

You're quite correct IF YOUR QUALIFICATION IS TRUE!

Which simply means, of course, that it isn't true:

These Revelations aren't "mutually exclusive," but rather build on each other in succession, each newer one being built on the foundation those that preceded it and advancing to newer and greater things!

Once again, spiritual teachings are eternal and essentially unchanging.

But social teachings are INTENTIONALLY temporary, and God (through His Divine Messengers) can alter, change, or abolish any of them as He sees fit! So there's no problem if a later religion has different social laws and teachings from an earlier one.

Piece of cake!

Best,

Bruce

 

[YmirGF]

'Allo, 'allo, Bruce:

These Revelations aren't "mutually exclusive," but rather build on each other in succession, each newer one being built on the foundation those that preceded it and advancing to newer and greater things!

You see Bruce this is exactly the "problem" I have with so-called "revelation". I am not interested in revelation per se, but I am very big on realization. Personally speaking, I have no use for a guide book on how to live life. I have a brain and it functions fairly well, so I do not especially need a book to tell me how to be. What disturbs me about the concept you have outlined is that it presupposes that the previous so-called "messengers" got it right and their "revealed" promises were valid. Personally speaking, I would be far more impressed with totally new thinking that did not use the religions before them for support. That seems to me as a hollow attempt at adding credibility to the claims of the "new" revelation. For example, it is not like the founders of previous faiths can counter any such claims. I highly doubt that Prophet Muhammed [pbuh] would be supportive of the Baha'i faith given his dedication to Islam. Likewise it is a bit of a stretch to think that Jesus would be supportive either. Since neither is here to defend their point of view it is somewhat misleading to use "built on the foundations" are a meaningful argument.

Once again, spiritual teachings are eternal and essentially unchanging.

Don't you think that is an oddity in a universe that is in a perpetual state of change, as we ourselves are. If these truths "don't change" then what is the need for any "new" religion? It sort of defeats the premise, doesn't it?

But social teachings are INTENTIONALLY temporary, and God (through His Divine Messengers) can alter, change, or abolish any of them as He sees fit! So there's no problem if a later religion has different social laws and teachings from an earlier one.[/qupte]So, in essence, this leaves me free to start yet another religion "built on the foundations" (or backs) of previous religions and then mandate any changes I wish. Sweet.

Piece of cake!

Indeed, but is that cake worth eating or not is the question.

 

[Popeyesays]

Paul,

That's free will and choice at play. You have every right to your opinon.Bruce has the right to his opinion that you might be whistling in the dark and talking through your hat.

We do not KNOW the truth of what we are discussing in this life. You puts your money down and you takes your chances on the wheel. It's the act of putting your money down and abiding by the outcome of the spin that we are called upon to perform.

Regards,
Scott

 

[BruceDLimber]

t is a bit of a stretch to think that Jesus would be supportive [of the Baha'i Faith] either.

On the contrary, Jesus HIMSELF said He had more to tell us (for which we weren't then ready), and personally promised to send another to deliver the further teachings!

And this IOV, along with the many other prophecies in the Bible, points directly to the Baha'i Faith!

You can also see where Jesus Himself changed earlier social teachings of Judaism, a clear example of what I was talking about.

And I already answered the "why" of new religions when I explained that social teachigns are intentionally temporary and subject to later change by God and His Messengers (though not by us).

Peace,

Bruce