• 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!

Who Has the truth? Who Will Bring World Peace?

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, I know your opinion, Tony. But unfortunately for you, I've actually read several more opinions. So if I get the opinion of 10 people, you expect me to believe your opinion, and your opinion alone? That's rather selfish of you. What happened to independent investigation?

Edited ... Baha'i Shunning > Menu - Slander & Shunning - Coercive Methods used in the Baha'i Faith
This website has nothing to do with people deciding they no longer want to be Baha’is or even Baha’is that go off and break laws. It is about joining up with a group that seeks to create a schism in the Baha’i Faith. The attitudes and behaviours of some of those who started such movements is well known.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So you're now admitting that you yourself did shunning, and changed for the better, yet a minute ago you boldly claimed Baha's don't shun?

No as I posted the part of your edited reply in my response, to which I was talking about.

I now choose not to post links like that, one can find a pimple if they look for it.

Regards Tony
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
How do you know that any of that is actually true? Mind you, I am not saying it isn't, but you have to look at the source and their motivation.... Motivation is everything.

If anyone associated with the Baha'i Faith really did those things I would want to know about it, but that would not change my belief in Baha'u'llah; it would just change my respect for the Baha'is and the institutions of the Baha'i Faith.

I never said I know it's true, but nor do I know what Bahai's tell me is true either. There are always two sides to every story, that's all. Good to hear all sides, then use logic or gut to determine which is more likely. But one of the problems here is that my neutrality has meant I've been told I have a clear anti Bahai agenda. I thought that was a bit over the top. The anti-Bahai sites vary a lot. Some folks are really nasty to the extreme that some Bahai here are totally pro everything Bahai. Others, on both sides, are more open to looking at the other side as having some validity, or good points. So it's individualised, totally. Two folks I know of who were Baha'i have left this forum because of the intolerance and fundamentalism shown to them from other Baha'i, not from people like me.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Thanks... I screened him thoroughly but I still let him through the screen. At first I blamed myself for being so naive but I know that I am not responsible for his bad behavior, so it is not my fault. He is a con man, plain and simple. All the e-mails that went back and forth between me and him, which are extensive, are adequate proof of the con he was trying, but unfortunately I do not know if a jury would see it that way. People can be really taken in by con-men.
Indeed. I'm very careful, and not naive. It's sad that people don't get second chances, but I think there are people out there who have far more skills and experience to deal with people like that. My taxes help pay for the medical counselors who might actually know what they're doing.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
No as I posted the part of your edited reply in my response, to which I was talking about.

I now choose not to post links like that, one can find a pimple if they look for it.

I don't understand, Tony. (As is common once we start exchanging. All your backtracking, changing your mind, it gets confusing.)
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Jesus made it very clear it was not him that was the 'Prince of Peace', that title is applicable to the end of the age.

Matthew 10:34"Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.…"

Again Tony, this is another misapplication of scripture. The lack of peace in these situations is brought about by those opposing their family members when they chose to become disciples of Jesus. Jesus told us to expect opposition, and especially from family members who support their own religious views.

Jesus as "Prince of Peace" taught his disciples to love one another and even to love their enemies.....if one refuses to engage in conflict, or to hate anyone, then peace becomes a condition of the heart. No one can force them to relinquish their peaceful state to fight in a political war or to actively rebel against their government, or to engage in heated exchanges with family members. We would rather not engage in those conflicts at all.

We leave the world to do whatever it wants....we are to be no part of it, as Jesus said. That is how you tell who is a genuine disciple of Christ and who is not. They will obey Jesus before any other. (Acts 5:29) The Prince of Peace rules us and he has from the start. (Isaiah 2:2-4)

Jesus Christ has also made it very clear there was to be much tribulation yet to come, before he was to return in the 'Glory of God' as the Prince of Peace.

The tribulation Jesus foretold (Matthew 24:21) was to come from the world in opposition to God. It is to take place as this world experiences its death throes. The "great tribulation" results in "the war of the great day of God the Almighty". This is the war that will end all wars and ultimately all opposition to God, his son, and his Kingdom. According to the Bible, it will take place regardless of what any of us believe.

This passage showing to me Christ and Baha'u'llah (translates as Glory of God) with God

Acts 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

Again another misapplication of scripture. Was Baha'u'llah in heaven with Jesus when Stephen was stoned? How many "Christ's" are there? "God's glory" is not a person, anymore than the glory of angels or the heavens is a person.

1 Corinthians 15:40-41...
"And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. 41 The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, one star differs from another star in glory."

Jesus said..."I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was."

It is apparent that your prophet is not the only one with "God's glory".

The Bible itself clarifies those verses which you use to support your prophet as someone identified in the Bible...I assure you that he isn't there.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Perhaps when the Baha’is and JWs shed off some negative karma we can become enlightened like some Hindus (the ones that aren’t in cults) and within a few lifetimes will be ready to escape the cycle of rebirth and achieve Moksha?

'Cult' as a term gets debated a lot. Here and elsewhere on line and in real life. I have yet to see many people like the term applied to themselves, yet those same folks will toss it around liberally about others, even when it's clear from an outsider like me that many of the same attributes apply. Ask Deeje or Katzpur if they like the word 'cult'. Personally, I don't have the same reaction because I first learned the word in a different use, back when it meant 'sect' and i was happy to be in the 'cult' of Murugan. I still am.

But regardless of words, actions are what counts.
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Two folks I know of who were Baha'i have left this forum because of the intolerance and fundamentalism shown to them fro

I don't understand, Tony. (As is common once we start exchanging. All your backtracking, changing your mind, it gets confusing.)

No use returning to those points, as the point intended was as clear as I can make it, but then I am then interested as to how you know the mind of the other Baha'i and thus say why they may have left, or any one that may have left in that case.

This is really fruitless, another thing to change within myself.

Regards Tony
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
This website has nothing to do with people deciding they no longer want to be Baha’is or even Baha’is that go off and break laws. It is about joining up with a group that seeks to create a schism in the Baha’i Faith. The attitudes and behaviours of some of those who started such movements is well known.

It was just one example. I googled 'cult of Bahaism' and got many hits. You should try it. I was just pointing out that others have used the term before I did, and I learned it from them. Would you like me to post all the links I found? There are many. So despite your negative reaction to the word being applied to your faith, there are many folks who would disagree.

Edited ... Here's another example of the word's use ... Cult of Hinduism
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I now choose not to post links like that, one can find a pimple if they look for it.

Not a pimple, from their POV. Some ex-Baha'is feel extremely damaged and hurt from what happened to them. Please don't trivialize their experience by saying 'it's nothing'. Stuff like that is why they are so overjoyed to be out. There are many 'ex' groups that have a commonality to share experiences, and get support from each other.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Again Tony, this is another misapplication of scripture. The lack of peace in these situations is brought about by those opposing their family members when they chose to become disciples of Jesus. Jesus told us to expect opposition, and especially from family members who support their own religious views.

Jesus as "Prince of Peace" taught his disciples to love one another and even to love their enemies.....if one refuses to engage in conflict, or to hate anyone, then peace becomes a condition of the heart. No one can force them to relinquish their peaceful state to fight in a political war or to actively rebel against their government, or to engage in heated exchanges with family members. We would rather not engage in those conflicts at all.

We leave the world to do whatever it wants....we are to be no part of it, as Jesus said. That is how you tell who is a genuine disciple of Christ and who is not. They will obey Jesus before any other. (Acts 5:29) The Prince of Peace rules us and he has from the start. (Isaiah 2:2-4)



The tribulation Jesus foretold (Matthew 24:21) was to come from the world in opposition to God. It is to take place as this world experiences its death throes. The "great tribulation" results in "the war of the great day of God the Almighty". This is the war that will end all wars and ultimately all opposition to God, his son, and his Kingdom. According to the Bible, it will take place regardless of what any of us believe.



Again another misapplication of scripture. Was Baha'u'llah in heaven with Jesus when Stephen was stoned? How many "Christ's" are there? "God's glory" is not a person, anymore than the glory of angels or the heavens is a person.

1 Corinthians 15:40-41...
"And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. 41 The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, one star differs from another star in glory."

Jesus said..."I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was."

It is apparent that your prophet is not the only one with "God's glory".

The Bible itself clarifies those verses which you use to support your prophet as someone identified in the Bible...I assure you that he isn't there.

As I say to my JW friend often. We are so close yet so far apart. :)

Good thing is we can learn peace together as one human race.

Regards Tony
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
'Cult' as a term gets debated a lot. Here and elsewhere on line and in real life. I have yet to see many people like the term applied to themselves, yet those same folks will toss it around liberally about others, even when it's clear from an outsider like me that many of the same attributes apply. Ask Deeje or Katzpur if they likes the word 'cult'. Personally, I don't have the same reaction because I first learned the word in a different use, back when it meant 'sect' and i was happy to be in the 'cult' of Murugan. I still am.

But regardless of words, actions are what counts.

I don’t see the word cult as particularly helpful to interfaith discussion as it’s usually used pejoratively and has associations with Jim Jones and the Branch Davidians.

Regardless of my criticism of the JWs, Deeje has been someone on this forum I’ve had interesting and sustained discussions with for over 2 years. The reason Deeje started this thread was Katz told us we were derailing one of her threads. Katz has been an easy person to get on with but we haven’t had much of an interfaith dialogue as with Deeje. Still the Mormons are strong supporters of the interfaith movement.

The JWs generally know the Bible well. A couple of years ago a new Baha’i I know was having regular visits from a Jehovah Witness. I encouraged the conversations as it was a good opportunity to learn about the Bible. Two years on he’s still having visits from the JW and attending a Baha’i study group.

Despite the faults of the Baha’is and JWs, perceived or otherwise there’s potential for some interesting discussions.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I never said I know it's true, but nor do I know what Bahai's tell me is true either. There are always two sides to every story, that's all. Good to hear all sides, then use logic or gut to determine which is more likely. But one of the problems here is that my neutrality has meant I've been told I have a clear anti Bahai agenda. I thought that was a bit over the top. The anti-Bahai sites vary a lot. Some folks are really nasty to the extreme that some Bahai here are totally pro everything Bahai. Others, on both sides, are more open to looking at the other side as having some validity, or good points. So it's individualised, totally. Two folks I know of who were Baha'i have left this forum because of the intolerance and fundamentalism shown to them from other Baha'i, not from people like me.
I do not consider you unfair at all, nor do you seem to have an anti-Baha'i agenda. Even though I am a Baha'i, I consider myself neutral on the subject of what Baha'is do, since I am not actively involved with any Baha'is in person.

There is no reason not to look at both sides and I think one should look at both sides. If someone does not want to look that indicates that they are afraid of something. The exception would be looking at Covenant-breaker websites because those can have a deleterious effect upon the soul. But people who have dropped out of the Faith are different. As a Baha'i, it might be useful to know why people drop out, just in case we are in any way responsible owing to our behavior.

I think that if there is extremism on ether side that is a red flag because that shows that people are unduly affected by their emotions rather than reason.

At the end of the day, it boils down to what is actually the truth versus a distortion of the facts, but unfortunately, it is difficult to determine that by reading on websites. We just have to use our best judgment.

The Baha'i Faith is a very mixed group of people. There are Baha'is I agree with on certain issues and ones I disagree with, but as Baha'is we are supposed to look for points of unity so that is what I try to do. Still, there are some with whom I disagree regarding their interpretations of the Writings. That is one reason I keep to myself. I am kind of an island onto myself because I do take what Baha'u'llah wrote rather seriously and literally, not just as some kind of motivational speech.

I know I am not going to get other Baha'is to understand how I feel because I am very different from most Baha'is who are actively involved in the community, so it is just easier to keep to myself, at least for now. However, I am very grateful that I have Baha'is I can post to on various forums because otherwise all I would have is my husband who is a Baha'i, and he has got his face in politics most of the time. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Despite the faults of the Baha’is and JWs, perceived or otherwise there’s potential for some interesting discussions.

Indeed. I read a lot of it. Your post 161 I found to be hypocritical. That was the post that inspired me to put something into this thread. But I think I'll be out now. Not really my discussion, as I don't need to argue with anyone about who has the truth. Let everyone else think they have it.
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not a pimple, from their POV. Some ex-Baha'is feel extremely damaged and hurt from what happened to them.

I see that is another thing we are good at, making mountains out of mole hills, to which the well to do material world has got down to a fine art.

I see people posting how bad it was when they had to wait 5 minutes to but a big mac meal, when others starve. From their POV that was bad service needing chastisement on a grand scale.

Its all but an individuals current frame of reference. To me life is now about expanding ones frames of reference.

Regards Tony
 

RedhorseWoman

Active Member
Thanks... I screened him thoroughly but I still let him through the screen. At first I blamed myself for being so naive but I know that I am not responsible for his bad behavior, so it is not my fault. He is a con man, plain and simple. All the e-mails that went back and forth between me and him, which are extensive, are adequate proof of the con he was trying, but unfortunately I do not know if a jury would see it that way. People can be really taken in by con-men.

I can empathize with this. When we moved to our current home, we didn't have time to sell our previous house, so we decided to rent it to a couple who, we thought, we our friends. They ended up causing a huge amount of damage to the house when they moved out and also didn't pay several months' rent.

After we repaired everything, we rented to a very responsible couple who were great, but they moved out after a couple of years because they had a house built for themselves. We went through a real estate agent to screen prospective renters, and a couple applied whom the realtor thought were not a good choice. But, just as you did, we thought we would give them a second chance and rented to them anyway. Bad decision...very bad.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I see that is another thing we are good at, making mountains out of mole hills, to which the well to do material world has got down to a fine art.

We? Sexual abuse at the hands of a religious teacher is hardly making a mountain out of a molehill, Tony. But I guess it's to each his own. Being booted from your house and disowned because you were born gay is hardly a molehill.
 

RedhorseWoman

Active Member
'Cult' as a term gets debated a lot. Here and elsewhere on line and in real life. I have yet to see many people like the term applied to themselves, yet those same folks will toss it around liberally about others, even when it's clear from an outsider like me that many of the same attributes apply. Ask Deeje or Katzpur if they likes the word 'cult'. Personally, I don't have the same reaction because I first learned the word in a different use, back when it meant 'sect' and i was happy to be in the 'cult' of Murugan. I still am.

But regardless of words, actions are what counts.

The term "cult" does tend to get some very negative reactions. A term that is probably more applicable would be "high-control religion." I think that the meaning is much clearer and harder to dismiss when applied to a group such as the JWs and other similar groups that use control mechanisms to keep their adherents in line.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We? Sexual abuse at the hands of a religious teacher is hardly making a mountain out of a molehill, Tony. But I guess it's to each his own. Being booted from your house and disowned because you were born gay is hardly a molehill.

They are situations we can agree on, that are not acceptable.

Regards Tony
 
Top