It is what it is. Speaking of the nature of religion, I cannot recall if I ever posted this short passage. Does this sound restricting to you? If so, why?
“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81
This is a plain, direct statement of the need for Revelations of the Abrahamic mold, directly followed by a claim of a linkage among successive ones. A very fair description of the core idea of the Bahai Faith.
It is indeed too restrictive as a description of religion in general, though, precisely because it requires a purely Abrahamic understanding of what constitutes religion.
That is not surprising or even particularly remarkable in and of itself; every single definition of religion is, after all, arbitrary. And it makes sense that the Abrahamic definitions would attempt to deal with their own expectations of inclusiveness, which are a direct consequence of the attributes of the God that they make central to their doctrine.
All the same, it still turns out that the Abrahamic model is not very good at representing religion in general, and even less successful at understanding non-Abrahamic creeds. For instance, it specifically states that monotheism is a requirement for religion. That is simply not true, at least outside of the Abrahamics.
That is a main dilemma for the Bahai Faith. It attempts to be widely respectful, yet it has also chosen not to leave aside its heritage of a discriminatory model of religion.
What is inefficient about Messengers? What are the better ways?
Messengers of the Bahai conception deliver very indirect messages, of a mainly textual nature.
That is just about the less efficient way of religious teaching available. It requires literacy, a considerable investiment of time reading, and an all but interminable, often deeply frustrating effort at seeking reliable yet useful interpretations of the meaning - interpretations that unavoidably end up being branded unreliable due to their supposed lack of divine endorsement, no less.
Its one saving grace is that it is often demographically succesful - but that carries far too heavy a price, IMO, to the point of making the validity of that transmission highly questionable.
A far better vehicle for the spread of religious doctrine is oral transmission, which involves direct interaction and answering of questions between teachers and students. Another is direct meditation and contemplation, which is even better when alternated with direct experience. There are several varieties of these, some focusing on specific emotional and mental attitudes.
No, God does not communicate directly to everyone and there are good reasons for that. I have all those saved in various Word documents since I posted to an atheist on other forums about this for years. I do like to save my work.
Of course, it seems to me that one supreme reason is that it does not exist in and of itself.
Those are not demands, they are injunctions, and they are not for God’s benefit, they are for human benefit.
Sorry, I am just not seeing it in either the Bible nor the Qur'an's language. I suppose it may appear a given that there should be a God and that it should speak as if it were a demanding tribe leader if one is exposed to those expectations consistently enough. But they are not really very natural conceptions.
Why would belief and obedience be indicative of a false god?
A true god would be transcendental by nature. It would be well beyond such mundane expectations of prestige for itself and submission from its followers.
Fair enough. I can agree on that. We learn from each other.
I am sorry but I have to plead ignorance on Islam. I know only enough to be dangerous. Most of what I know is from what Muslims have posted on forums, and that s not very much. I also know what Baha'u'llah quoted from the Qur’an. Had I been actively involved in the Baha’i Faith since I became a Baha’i I would know a lot more, but I only started having an interest in religion during the last few years and most of what I have focused on is Christianity; given I live in a predominantly Christian country I feel it is necessary to know the basics of Christianity.
Fair enough.
All the same, it is a historical fact that the Bahai Faith originated in a Shia Muslim culture, and it definitely shows.
Despite the clear irony of the fact, it is still true that the Bahais are very much among the most effective defenders of the reputation of Islaam these days. For various reasons, the Bahai Faith presents both the willingness to perceive Islaam as a legitimate, true revelation and the desire to actually describe it to non-Muslims in dignified terms. Interestingly, that is considerably rarer among Muslims, at least in the circles that I frequent. I have my ideas about why that is so, but it took many years to form them.
Yes, God does allow for atheists and one has to wonder why. I have no answer off the top of my head. One thing I can think of is that God wants our faith and atheists do not want to have to have faith, they want proof. So without faith atheists will always be atheists unless God provides proof.
My gut feeling is that such is not the case. Atheism has very few consequences and little meaning, but it is not
quite so close to theism.
From where I stand, it looks much more accurate to say that atheists are generally simply not particularly taken by the need for theistic faith. It is not even something to consider rejecting, except of course that we are usually taught to nonetheless take a stance about that idea, exotic as it may seem. I don't think very many atheists have ever found themselves in a situation of deciding whether they could or wanted to be theistic. I am not sure that it would even make logical sense.
Also, allow me to point out that theistic belief and faith in God are not necessarily one and the same.
The Bab said that in the future everyone will believe in God, but I do not know how that will come to pass:
“The Day is approaching when God will render the hosts of Truth victorious, and He will purge the whole earth in such wise that within the compass of His knowledge not a single soul shall remain unless he truly believeth in God, worshippeth none other God but Him, boweth down by day and by night in His adoration, and is reckoned among such as are well assured.” Selections From the Writings of the Báb, pp. 153-154
Quite the Islaam-like passage, that one! Its language sure seems to imply not so much a conversion as an eradication of nontheists, don't you think? As a matter of fact, it has an oddly Muslim expectation of belief in "no other God".
I don't think that very many Muslims (or perhaps Bahais) appreciate how exotic and nearly undecipherable such an expectation is for those on the outside. It is so strange a request that I think that most people simply gloss over it without attempting to understand it.
It seems to me to be actually self-contradictory, for it presumes the coexistence of both a purely monotheistic mindset and the need to protect it from some form of temptation to worship other Gods.
The net effect is perhaps that of praising the virtues of monotheism by the perspective of a monotheist, while just sounding odd without much of a clear meaning if one is a non-monotheist.
