InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
Right, but it gives a clear opinion of others on Baha'u'llah and opens up farther discussions to clear it out.
-
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 was Baha'u'llah?
- Thread starter InvestigateTruth
- Start date
This has been discussed extensively in this forum. Unless there is something more that gives 21st century thinkers a reason to take the claims of a 19th century person seriously, then what more is there?
This is the same dilemma for any theist. It’s not just atheists who are a target audience to convince, its other believers who don’t agree with your dogma. That’s not successful either. Other theists are already committed, and atheists require a standard that religions can’t offer.
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
I tell you what. Everytime I discuss it, I learn something mew myself.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Me too. Every time I discuss it, I learn something new.
(new, not mew).... Sorry, my dad was an college English professor, and I corrected his English papers when I was 10 years old.
Nevertheless, I am always catching my own typos on here.
Well that’s the advantage of discussing issues with critical thinkers. They are well informed.
Claiming you are the return of Christ and the Messenger of God for this age, is self-promotion. Many people claim to be the return of Christ, and those that do are generally regarded as delusional. I just watched a special on Wako, TX, and the cult with David Koresh. He believed he was the return of Christ too. And he believed everything he did was not for himself either, and that he would die for his followers.
Again, believing oneself to be the Christ and being willing to die, does not mean you are not delusional. In fact, this is very common.
See below.
Here is a list of those claiming to be the return of Christ. Bahaullah is listed among them, to take note: List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia
19th century
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- John Nichols Thom (1799–1838), a Cornish merchant and politician who claimed to be the "saviour of the world" and the reincarnation of Jesus Christ in 1834. He was killed during a confrontation with government soldiers at the Battle of Bossenden Wood on 31 May 1838 near Hernhill, Kent.[5]
- Arnold Potter (1804–1872), Schismatic Latter Day Saint leader; he claimed the spirit of Jesus Christ entered into his body and he became "Potter Christ" Son of the living God. He died in an attempt to "ascend into heaven" by jumping off a cliff. His body was later retrieved and buried by his followers.[6]
- Bahá'u'lláh (1817–1892), born Shiite, adopted Bábism later in 1844;[7] he claimed to be the prophesied fulfillment and Promised One of major religions including Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. He founded the Baháʼí Faith in 1863.[8] The Baháʼís believe that the fulfillment of the prophecies of the second coming of Jesus, as well as the prophecies of the 5th Buddha Maitreya and many other religious prophecies, were begun by the Báb in 1844 and then by Bahá'u'lláh. They commonly compare the fulfillment of Christian prophecies to Jesus' fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, where in both cases people were expecting the literal fulfillment of apocalyptic statements.[9]
- William W. Davies (1833–1906), leader of a Latter Day Saint schismatic group called the Kingdom of Heaven located in Walla Walla, Washington from 1867 to 1881. He taught his followers that he was the archangel Michael, who had previously lived as the biblical Adam, Abraham, and David. When his son Arthur was born on 11 February 1868, Davies declared that the infant was the reincarnated Jesus Christ.[10][11] When Davies's second son, David, was born in 1869, he was declared to be God the Father.[10]
- Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India (1835–1908), claimed to be the awaited Mahdi as well as the Second Coming and likeness of Jesus, the promised Messiah at the end of time. He claimed to be Jesus in the metaphorical sense; in character. He founded the Ahmadiyya Movement in 1889, envisioning it to be the rejuvenation of Islam, and claimed to be commissioned by God for the reformation of humankind.
- Cyrus Teed (1839–1908), American physician, claimed to be the incarnation of Jesus Christ and to have obtained knowledge regarding the Hollow Earth theory, presenting a cosmological model having the Earth as an inverted sphere and the remaining universe located within it.[12]
- Carl Browne (1849–1914), American activist and leader of the Coxey's Army protest movement, claimed to be the partial reincarnation of Jesus.[13]
Really? That no one would recognize him if he didn't claim he was the return of Christ, says to me that he didn't he wasn't. If I were to meet the real Jesus in person, I'm pretty sure I'd be impressed by his very Presence, without needing to be told. That's kind of the nature of what being the Light of the World would mean. You don't need to be told that's Light. You can see for yourself!
It's not highly subjective. It's a very well informed and grounded opinion based upon my experience and research into these things. See above, as one example.
It's grandiose of me to recognize the nature of oral traditions and mythmaking in human culture? No. I'd called that education. Not delusions of grandeur.
I don't know all of his specific claims, but in essence saying things like he is the return of Christ and the Messenger of God for the Age, is pretty much saying the same thing. I seem to recall hearing a lot of these sorts of these grand exalted titles applied to himself.
Close enough.
Fine. You are entitled to your opinion.
This is a gross misunderstanding of what being One with God means. Think of it in terms of "the two shall become one", which is spoken of those getting married. This is a great expression of that Oneness that is meant. It comes from the Christian Mystic Meister Eckhart, from the 14th century.
The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.
Do you consider that statement to be blasphemy and impossible in your view? I do not. I see it as a fully attainable reality for anyone. That to me is what it means to "know God".
Why? Can you describe what the experience of that has been for you personally?
Yet, you threw down this post in challenge to me? You asked me for my reasons and I told you. Are you saying you don't care to discuss it, but just show me how wrong I was and be done with it?
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
One more quote adding to @Trailblazer:
Certain ones among you have said: "He it is Who hath laid claim to be God." By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs, and in His Prophets and in His angels. My tongue, and My heart, and My inner and My outer being testify that there is no God but Him, that all others have been created by His behest, and been fashioned through the operation of His Will. There is none other God but Him, the Creator, the Raiser from the dead, the Quickener, the Slayer. I am He that telleth abroad the favors with which God hath, through His bounty, favored Me. If this be My transgression, then I am truly the first of the transgressors. I and My kindred are at your mercy. Do ye as ye please, and be not of them that hesitate, that I might return to God My Lord, and reach the place where I can no longer behold your faces. This, indeed, is My dearest wish, My most ardent desire. Of My state God is, verily, sufficiently informed, observant.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 227)
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
What good did he accomplish? That is one of the evidences of a true Prophet.
You have to proclaim you are a Prophet if you a true Prophet to accomplish the good that God entrusts them to accomplish. There are indeed delusional people that believe they are a Prophet, but the fruits of such people are not good on the whole.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
That was true of people who met Baha'u'llah. How could they proclaim Him to the world to be Prophet on that basis? There have been people who have impressed people by their presence when they weren't Prophets. Francis of Assisi from what I have heard were impressed in his presence, but is he known today to be a Prophet? People I'm sure, Franciscans for sure, are taken by what he said, but it is not taken as the Word of God, infallible by anyone. It is the infallibility that needs to be established in people's minds so that They can be teachers to be believed in everything.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Yes, that's a lot to investigate, but most can be dismissed out of hand. Someone like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or Baha'u'llah would have to be examined more closely.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
As I already explained, Baha'u'llah never promoted Himself, He only promoted God.
I believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ and the Messenger of God for this age and obviously He had to claim that so people would know who He was claiming to be.
That does not prove a thing about Baha'u'llah. It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because most prophets are false that means all prophets are false.
Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions:
Again, it is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because many men who claimed to be the return of Christ were false claimants that means that Baha'u'llah was a false claimant. We can only know if they are true or false by the evidence. The evidence is their character, what they accomplished on their mission and what revealed in scripture.
That is completely illogical. How would anyone know that He was the return of Christ if He did not proclaim it? He was not in the presence of that many people, as he has a lot of work to do completing Hid mission and writing tablets. After He died how would anyone know who He was if He did not write about it?
I do not believe anyone can be One with God in the sense you describe. I believe that the only way to know God is through what the Messengers of God reveals, not through personal experience.
I told you I did not want to argue about this. I will never see it your way and you will never see it my way. This is not something that can ever be proven, it is only a matter of belief. You have your beliefs and I have mine.
I cannot explain that in a post. It has transformed my entire life. It is the only reason I have any hope for my life in this world and the next world.
No, my post was not a challenge to you. I now know your position and you know mine. What more is there to discuss? I don't want to argue about who is right or wrong.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You just made me think of this interview that Lewis once posted on another forum. He typed this up all by himself from the book entitled Baha'u'llah, he was so proud of himself. It made me really sad but when I remembered it I had to come back and post it because I know he would have wanted me to. I am not sure how I am going to survive on this earth much longer and right now I wish I was dead.
I decided to share an interview of Baha’u’llah which took place in the vicinity of Haifa, Israel in April, 1890. The interviewer was “. . . the distinguished orientalist and Fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, then at the outset of his brilliant academic career.” (Baha’u’llah by H. M. Balyuzi, George Ronald, London, Reprinted 1968, page 61) The following is taken from this source, pp 62-63.
“Edward Browne has left us a pen-portrait of Baha’u’llah. It is the only one of its kind in existence, and therefore of tremendous value to the student of the Baha’i Faith. Today a visitor to Bahji (north of Haifa, Israel) can read this document, before venturing into Baha’u’llah’s chamber. Thus can one try to recreate in one’s mind the interview granted to the English orientalist:
“. . . my conductor paused for a moment while I removed my shoes. Then with a quick movement of the hand, he withdrew, and, as I passed, replaced the curtain; and I found myself in a large apartment, along the upper end of which ran a low divan, while on the side opposite to the door were placed two or three chairs. Though I dimly suspected whither I was going and whom I was to behold (for no distinct intimation had been given to me), a second or two elapsed ere, with a throb of wonder and awe, I became definitely conscious that the room was not untenanted. In the corner, where the divan met the wall sat a wondrous and venerable figure, crowned with a felt head-dress of the kind called Taj by dervishes (but of unusual height and make), round the base of which was wound a small white turban. The face of him on whom I gazed I can never forget, though I cannot describe it. Those piercing eyes seemed to read one’s very soul; power and authority sat on that ample brow; while the deep lines on the forehead and face implied an age which the jet-black hair and beard flowing down in indistinguishable luxuriance almost to the waist seemed to belie. No need to ask in whose presence I stood, as I bowed myself before one who is the object of a devotion and love which kings might envy and emperors sigh for in vain!”
“A mild dignified voice bade me be seated, and then continued: - “Praise be to God that thou hast attained! . . . Thou hast come to see a prisoner and an exile. . . . We desire but the good of the world and the happiness of the nations; yet they deem us a stirrer-up of strife and sedition worthy of bondage and banishment. . . . That all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled – what harm is there in this? . . . Yet so it shall be; these fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the ‘Most Great Peace’ shall come. . . . Do not you in Europe need this also? Is not this that which Christ foretold? … Yet do we see your kings and rulers lavishing their treasures more freely on means for the destruction of the human race than on that which would conduce to the happiness of mankind. . . These strifes and this bloodshed and discord must cease, and all men be as one kindred and one family. . . . Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind . . .”
After returning home Browne wrote “Such, so far as I can recall them, were the words which, besides many others, I heard from Baha. Let those who read them consider well with themselves whether such doctrines merit death and bonds, and whether the world is more likely to gain or lose by their diffusion.”
DharmaCatLamp
Member
I have to admit out of all the religious figures I have investigated Bahaullah is probably the one I know the least about.
For awhile I disregarded him because I knew he thought Muhammad was a prophet and I have had more than a few doubts about that. You have prompted me to take another look at Bahauallah so I think I will check him out. If you want to tell me where I could look up more information about the guy feel free to tell me.
For awhile I disregarded him because I knew he thought Muhammad was a prophet and I have had more than a few doubts about that. You have prompted me to take another look at Bahauallah so I think I will check him out. If you want to tell me where I could look up more information about the guy feel free to tell me.
Not everyone who claims they are the 2nd coming of Christ are dangerous individuals like a David Koresh. There are many who are quite harmless, or even benefactors to others in their delusions about themselves.
Heck, RF itself has seen at least a dozen or so different 2nd comings of Christ announce their return to the membership here. And they were quite sincere in their belief about themselves. Even currently posting on RF we have at least one or two other prophets who hear directly from God to tell them how wrong the rest of us our in our beliefs. My point is, these claims are far from uncommon or rare. And not everyone who has these self-delusions are a harm to others. Some are quite harmless.
What I can't wrap my mind around though is why you claim that they have to proclaim they are a prophet in order to accomplish the good God "sent" them to do? Why is that? If you read the narrative stories about Jesus in the gospels, there is this constant mystery in the minds of everyone, even his immediate disciples about who Jesus was.
He never went around proclaiming he was a prophet. He never went around proclaiming he was the messiah. He let his words and actions speak for themselves, and left it up to others to decide. Only when Peter said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", did the story about him have Jesus acknowledge it! This is the opposite of what you are claiming is necessary. Isn't it?
Well you see this is one of the core problems I have with that system itself. Why do the words of these illuminated individuals need to be taken as infallible? I think this is very wrongheaded. It is also an enormous house of cards that sets up followers of that doctrine for a massive crush upon their faith in God when it turns out these "infallible" prophet's words have errors in them!
For instance, I recall some past discussions with a couple Baha'i here (who I cannot remember), how that evolution is wrong because the prophet said that humans did not evolve from earlier animal species into humans, but were human beings from the very start. Obviously, this is completely erroneous scientifically.
So then what ensues for the faithful becomes this tortured logic to try to make their faith right by making science wrong in order to preserve their beliefs in the prophet being infallible! This is as true for fundamentalist Christians as it it for those in your religion who subscribe to this doctrine of infallibility.
This is bad for faith. This is bad for reason. And when the evidence looked at becomes too overwhelming to continue to deny, they end up becoming atheists, and the like. House of cards. Find one weakness in the infallibility claim, and down comes the whole thing. It is truly building one's house upon shifting sand.
Hale Bopp, Koresh, Jim Jones, etc. There is a line of false prophets that attract vulnerable people. Baha'u'llah is dead so his cult is run by an administration, so there isn't a focal point or person that can exploit members anymore. But what did Baha'u'llah accomplish? Some 150 later what has been accomplished that made a difference in the course of human events? All I can see ifs that he formed a cult that is still active and have about 5 millions followers.
Baha'u'llah don't offer any evidence he was a prophet. His bigotry is a huge red flag.
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
Many times I write in forum when I am at work, so, I miss my typos. My eyes are not helping either recently. Maybe I need glassesMe too. Every time I discuss it, I learn something new.
(new, not mew).... Sorry, my dad was an college English professor, and I corrected his English papers when I was 10 years old.
Nevertheless, I am always catching my own typos on here.
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
Just some facts:
Bahai Faith is not a cult. It does not fall under the definition of cults.
Baha'u'llah provided many evidences but the investigation and conclusion is on everyone.
Actually, anybody that vote for any option other than 3 is not Baha'i
It discredits his claims that he speaks for a god or that a god speaks through him. If that were the case, the message would be something no human could have written.
This was written about Christianity, but applies with Baha'ism as well:
"We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact." - Ingersoll
Yeah. It's worse now. 3/16 believe, 13/16 (81%) do not.:
Yes they were.
Number two. How could he more grandiose than that? I suppose by claiming to be a god himself. Of course, delusional here means holding a false belief, especially ones unsupported by evidence, and especially if one is in a very small minority rather than part of an indoctrinated group.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd." - Sam Harris
Maybe this will help:
A Zen master walked up to the hotdog concession outside of Costco and asked the vendor to make him one with everything. This miffed the vendor, so when he was asked for change, the hotdog vendor informed the Zen master that change must come from within.
Last edited: