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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The claim is that the spiritual laws remain unchanged, but the social laws change. So, in which ever order you think they were revealed in, what were the social laws that were changed between Hinduism to Buddhism and to Judaism? Then, after that, what were the social laws that Jesus changed?
Has there ever been a problem with believers taking things to far and imposing their beliefs and laws on others? Why expect them to be able to give verifiable, objective evidence for their prophets, Gods and beliefs? Even though they can't prove it, what is the harm in letting a religion grow and become so large that they can impose their laws and beliefs on others?
Well, you are much more trusting and in a higher spiritual plane then I am. I don't see any religion, mostly those that are considered to be "organized" religions, being completely good. There will be some good fruit and some bad. I think the Baha'i Faith has already shown signs of being authoritarian. Too many, like in maybe all of the relatives of their prophet got kicked out. That's not very good fruit.
Yes, we have investigated, maybe not as deeply as they would like. Or maybe it's that we are investigating and finding things that we weren't supposed to find? Or, like with credible evidence, expected to find but couldn't find any. And their stance is saying, "Well, look again. It there. It's only the spiritually blind that can't see it." Oops! I can't see it. Or, they have their Baha'is tinted glasses on and everything Baha'i looks rosy.
The ones who were Covenant-breakers got kicked out because they were not very good fruit and their rotten fruit had the potential to destroy the good fruit.
I don't think we can trust any religion when they have an ideology that marginalizes any group or category of people. I don;t care how much they try to promote unity and decency, they still have followers who are flawed people and greedy for power and significance. It is easy to use power aganst others when ideology is used as the basis for authority.
If they are going to impose actual rules on lives then they need more than their weak evidence. No mortal can claim a divine authority without that divine being a fact. The kings through time, and even governments that are theocracies, use God as wwindow dressing for their own authority. It's an excuse for human failings, not service to to an actual God.
I think this idea is an unrealistic ideal as it assumes humans are more like Vulcans, who are emotionally detached and highly rational, and not the flawed humans we are. The funny thing about this Baha'i ideal is that Baha'u'llah actually seemed to think humans could do this. The followers actually think it can be done. It's all naive and ignores the reality of human psychology. There are way too many immature and reactionary citizens all over the world, and we see these numbers represented in all those who vote for authoritarian leaders. If Baha'u'llah was actually wise he would have advocated for a movement of education, emotional stability, maturity, and civic duty. He should have put pressure on the individual toowards self-efficacy instead of being a follower, like other religions do. But this isn't what many humans want, or capable of, as we see with how Krishnamurti handled his life and philosophy. He was raised to be a guru, the leadewr of the Order of the Star of the East. And when he was in control, he disbanded it and became an anti-guru. He advocated for people being their own person and working towards their own path, not to be a follower. It shook up a lot of people and they didn't know what to do. But I think he had the right approach. He never got a lot of students and I suspect that is because many humans are lazy and not very mature. It is easier to be a follower and a believer.
The dilemma with Baha'u'llah's texts is that they are too wordy and seem like he's trying too hard to be a guru. Real leaders can be concise and to the point. They have to be coherent and not seem like they are trying to sell you a product. I think those wanting to be a follower will be attracted to it. The confused language sounds like there's something in the meaning, and the follower has to work to interpret. Like a mystery novel, where the reader tries to figure out who done it. There's nothing svecial about what Baha'u'llah wrote, and it's not well done. And let's not forget the bigotry, which to my mind is the one thing that makes it all invalid as any sort of truth. If you advocate for bigotry, you're done in the modern era. And moral people will be turned off completely. And how do you create unity when you directly divide off gay people from society? That is what we see in the comments on RF.
Even if there was evidence (let's be honest, all Baha'i have as evidence is taking Baha'u'llah at his word, and as noted he's a bigot, so his character and wisdom is in question) it would be a problem for decent and moral people to join a religion that is overtly homophobic. I have to wonder how the forum Baha'i can live with themselves knowing they have joined a religion that is prejudiced, but also claims their motive is unity. It doesn't work.
Just because someone brands someone a heretic, or a "covenant breaker" does not mean that they in fact have 'rotten fruit'. That can just mean that whoever in charge and doesn't like someone who challenges them, calls them terms like that in order to discredit their legitimate challenges. "Don't listen to my opponent! He's a sinner!!!" That's all just political rhetoric.
I only meant "rotten fruit" in a particular context, because they are causing division within the Baha'i Faith.
bahaiteachings.org
Jesus caused division within the Jewish religion. Would a Baha'i consider his teachings to be "rotten fruit"?
Black and white thinking by its very nature is error itself.
You don't think a non-Baha'i can recognize human fallacies, such as politics and black and white dogmatisms? This is not unique to the Baha'i. I commented on it because it's the exact same animal you find in Christianity and any other group that identifies itself with a certain ideology and belief, run by a hierarchical structure of authoritarianism.
So many Bible and NT stories provided better evidence then the Baha'i Faith. But even the Baha'i Faith doesn't believe most of it. The flood, the plagues against Egypt. sending fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah, parting the seas, Moses' cane turning into a snake, talking animals, writing on the wall, manna from heaven. a pillar of smoke guiding the Hebrews, the walls of Jericho falling down, Elijah calling down fire from heaven.
As to Hinduism and Buddhism I don't know enough about what Krishna had to say social laws, but Buddha had laws for His monks, and a less stringent set of laws to follow for the others. Whatever laws were in the Indian sub-continent had nothing to do with the laws in the Middle East, the Dharmic and Abrahamic lines were different because they existed in different parts of the world, with different points of view of each respective area. That didn't make one area or the other wrong, though. It is like the story if you know of it of the blind man and the elephant. He felt different parts of the elephant and came to different conclusions, but it is the same elephant.
What you say is true, most did, but you need to consider what these relatives did. Being in proximity with Baha'u'llah because they were family doesn't mean that they will necessarily not try to take charge themselves after Baha'u'llah's passing. In fact, like a Royal family, it increases the temptation, and being a relative of His increases their pride.
More precisely, they tried to take unlawful control of Baha'u'llah's Faith after His passing.
That was my point. Some Baha'is make it sound as though each new manifestation brings new social laws that do away with the previous set of social laws. But people in different places, with different cultures, had their own laws and religions that fit their culture. They didn't get replaced by new laws from the new manifestation. And, to me, most of time the new religion and its laws and beliefs replaced the laws and beliefs of the old religion was when the new religion was forced on the people and their old religion was outlawed.
I believe it is not a stretch to view guidance as being more than what you wish it to be. Actually what basis do you have for constricting the term to mere personal leading?John 16:13 is not talking about giving the authors of the gospels, whoever they actually might have been, behind the scenes details of what happened when the disciples weren't there so they could fill in gaps in their narrative stories about Jesus!Reading it that way is in fact, total speculation on your part.
To quote that verse you are referring to in full:
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
That has to do with being led by the Spirit, listening to the guidance of God in your life and situations, and also in the gift of prophecy looking to future events.
Applying that to try to make your idea that somehow the authors of the gospels got secret information that they were not privy to, so they could write the gospels "as if" they were actually eyewitnesses when they weren't even there, is as a huge stretch of meaning here. It's stretching the meaning of that verse beyond all possible recognition.
You may as well claim you can tell us what Abraham Lincoln said to his mother when he was five years old on one particular Sunday afternoon, because the Holy Ghost told you.
I believe that is possible but it won't get you into the Kingdom of God and eternal life.I voted for the first option, with a 'modifier'. All I believe are a manifestation of 'God'
-----------------o
I believe that is difficult to determine. There are other possibilities: Delusion or people misunderstanding him.
Determining any religion is a fraud can be easy for some and difficult for others. For a born-again Christian to call Islam, the Baha'i Faith and other religions frauds isn't hard at all. They use their interpretation of Bible and the NT and it is obvious to them that those religions don't teach the "truth" about God and Jesus.
I believe I have seen too much of that. I prefer to get to a complete understanding and I wouldn't say that about any religion. However I can tell whether the fruit is good to eat or poisonous. I used to do mushroom hunting with my mother and she had a handbook of what was edible and what was poisonous. Sometimes the mushrooms were difficult to tell apart.
