Why Bahai

[firedragon]

Now, kindly do not try to teach me Sanskrit. Yes, the act of friendship will be termed as 'Mitratva', and there is no 'th' in 'Atīta'.
Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

As I said, what you agree with and what you disagree with is your choice.

Alright mate.

What are the 5 ways of pronunciation?

Okay brother. Tell me, is it Hard-dental or Cerebral pronunciation?

How do you say "What has already happened" in Sanskrit? And is it cerebral or dental?

 

[Vinayaka]

Brother. I dont know why you have pulled in a new argument about a word.

You are absolutely wrong. It's Mithra. Its not Mitra. People may write Mitra, but its pronounced Mithra. How do you say friendship? It will be written Mitratwa in English. But it's Mithrathwa. "TH" sound. As in "thanks" or "thought".

Just like saying Atita. Its Athitha ("th" pronunciation as in the word "think").

In the transliteration system I use, the th means a t and an h blend, much as you see/here in the word dharma, except thats a d and h. The h sound is tough to here as it's practically silent, moreso to the English trained ear. English speakers will often just say darma and omit the h, but then get corrected by someone used to the h being there.

So the th may not be a digraph at all, but a blend.

 

[LuisDantas]

Every religion in history claims to fullfile previous religions.

Sure. If you adopt a fairly restricted definition of "religion" that, who would have thought, does not stray too far from mainstream Abrahamic expectations.

I do not have any reason to do such a thing, and I would not advise anyone to.

The Baha'i Faith considers ancient religions relevant to the time they were revealed, and restores certain beliefs such as absolute Monotheism, and yes disagrees with the laws of older religions like concerning slavery as no longer relevant in the contemporary world.

That is better than many other implementations of Abrahamism, certainly.

But still falls far too short of what religion can and arguably should attempt to be.

For one thing, it is just way too obsessed with monotheism. That right there is a serious flaw.

Honestly, I have come to the point that I wonder how come so many people still have time for strictly monotheistic doctrines. It is just so counterproductive, so much of an unnecessary distraction from religiosity proper.

 

[firedragon]

In the transliteration system I use, the th means a t and an h blend, much as you see/here in the word dharma, except thats a d and h. The h sound is tough to here as it's practically silent, moreso to the English trained ear. English speakers will often just say darma and omit the h, but then get corrected by someone used to the h being there.

So the th may not be a digraph at all, but a blend.

Mate. Dharma is Aspirated-Dental. Mithra is Hard-Dental.

T sound like in the word Take is Hard-Cerebral. So Mithra will be pronounced "TH" as in the word "think". Hard-Dental. "Dental, not Cerebral".

Transliteration is not phonetic. Im trying to say this so many times brother but you are too arrogant I cannot understand why.

So tell me. You are a Sanskrit expert. What does atita, in the same link you gave hear mean? What is it? Is it dental or cerebral pronunciation?

You wish to discuss this, not me. You are the one who is trying your best to argue. So tell me.

 

[Vinayaka]

Mate. Dharma is Aspirated-Dental. Mithra is Hard-Dental.

T sound like in the word Take is Hard-Cerebral. So Mithra will be pronounced "TH" as in the word "think". Hard-Dental. "Dental, not Cerebral".

Transliteration is not phonetic. Im trying to say this so many times brother but you are too arrogant I cannot understand why.

So tell me. You are a Sanskrit expert. What does atita, in the same link you gave hear mean? What is it? Is it dental or cerebral pronunciation?

You wish to discuss this, not me. You are the one who is trying your best to argue. So tell me.

I think you have me mixed up with Aup. This was the first time I said anything, and it was just offering another possibility. I never gave any link at all. Oh well.

 

[firedragon]

I think you have me mixed up with Aup. This was the first time I said anything, and it was just offering another possibility. I never gave any link at all. Oh well.

Haha. Sorry then brother. Apologies.

But I think what you said was right. Given that I read your comment alone. Yes, English readers have a big problem with this t's and th's. Even the t sound which is cerebral has to be pronounced by bending your tongue to touch the middle top of your mouth. Top Pallet. Not the front part like the normal pronunciation of t.

And yes. Pronouncing Dharma is extremely difficult to read phonetically. It is not just dharma with a d and h pronunciation, you have to add the aspirate which you cannot portray in phonetic spelling or transliteration.

Anyway, we got lost in one word from one post.

Thanks brother. And sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[oldbadger]

Make it rain where there is drought. Make it so all soldiers miss their target. Revive the dead on an entire field. Then maybe I'd think differently.

You know that the above (in bold) is a claimed Bahai miracle.

Since you mentioned those others, were they just random examples of miracles or are they Bahai miracles as well?

 

[Vinayaka]

Haha. Sorry then brother. Apologies.

But I think what you said was right. Given that I read your comment alone. Yes, English readers have a big problem with this t's and th's. Even the t sound which is cerebral has to be pronounced by bending your tongue to touch the middle top of your mouth. Top Pallet. Not the front part like the normal pronunciation of t.

And yes. Pronouncing Dharma is extremely difficult to read phonetically. It is not just dharma with a d and h pronunciation, you have to add the aspirate which you cannot portray in phonetic spelling or transliteration.

Anyway, we got lost in one word from one post.

Thanks brother. And sorry for the misunderstanding.

A better explanation for what I said was th as in eat honey as below.

No problem.

 

[Vinayaka]

You know that the above (in bold) is a claimed Bahai miracle.

Since you mentioned those others, were they just random examples of miracles or are they Bahai miracles as well?

Just random. I had no idea it was considered a miracle.

 

[firedragon]

A better explanation for what I said was th as in eat honey as below.

No problem.

Ah. Now I understand. Thats actually a good way of explaining. If the reader gets it.

 

[CG Didymus]

Its always best to keep Abdu’l-Bahá in our thoughts and his example of love and compassion to all. He wasn’t a push over either and would often advocate for what was just and fair.



Baha’is are humans along with everyone else. We’re imperfect with much to learn.



Relationships are two way streets are they not? If one side starts criticising and fault finding then its usually not helpful.

RF is an interesting space where we come together to discuss and debate religion. There’s always going to be some tensions and friction. A thread is started asking about the Baha’i Faith. The Baha’is are always happy to offer their perspectives and critics of the Baha’i Faith are equally eager to share their views.

Abdu’l-Bahá also said love your enemies and see them as friends. Is that an easy thing? Not always, no.

What I have observed is after several years on this forum the Baha’is and their critics are still talking to each other and for the most part keeping it civil. This thread has been one of the messier ones I’ve seen in a while. Hopefully its valuable learning for us all.

Thanks for your post and I always value your perspectives and feedback.

This is the kind of response I was looking for from a Baha'i. Thank you for letting the teachings of the Baha'i Faith sink in and change you into a better person.

 

[CG Didymus]

'word salad'

Thanks for reading the quote and saying what the main points were. I tried to read but couldn't get through the first two sentences. Is there a Cliff Notes on the Baha'i Books?

 

[CG Didymus]

Looking at Muhammad and what He did and said seemed like a useful starting point. The concept of Progressive Revelation shouldn’t be too hard to grasp. If you believe God Revealed Himself or made Himself or His Will known through both Moses and Christ then we have an excellent example of Progressive Revelation. What Christ Taught was founded on the Hebrew Bible.

You know I have an opinion on this. I think Jews have a very good reason to reject Jesus as their Messiah. He didn't fulfill the things in the prophecies. And, some things given as prophecies are taken out of context and were never meant to be prophecies. In other words, they are phony prophecies. One of the main ones I complain about is the "virgin birth" one from Isaiah. A virgin or a young maiden? Was it a prophecy or a "sign" for the King? I see it as a sign and that by the time the child reaches a certain age the Kings enemies will be gone. And they were. This kid also was to be eating some curds or something? When did Jesus do this? Never. And Christians don't use any of the context of the story. They only use and need the word "virgin". That ain't right and if it was the only time Christians did this, it would be enough to falsify their claims. But, it isn't.

So then Christianity did "progress" out of Judaism... and messed everything up. Jews, Baha'is and Muslims all say how Christians got it wrong. And I say it was very early on and even in the writings of the NT. So a progression or a religion with some made up parts that are false? Wouldn't that make it a false religion? You know all those things... Jesus is God. Satan and hell. people were born sinners and need the sacrifice of Jesus to save them and so on.

But I like some things about Christianity. I know people that can feel Jesus in their hearts. Lots of them have love and compassion for others. But then, some feel there is a need to do some Bible bashing and get people to believe before it's too late. So some Christians are great, but that still doesn't change the fact that Jews, Muslims and Baha'is don't agree with many of their major doctrines and beliefs. So a progression? To what? A religions with false beliefs?

So, the question for me is, why does it work? I usually add Mormonism to this question. They have beliefs that other Christians say are false. Protestants say Catholics have false beliefs. Yet people in all of them, if you asked them, know God, can feel his presence in their lives and believe and trust in the things their form of Christianity teaches. So why does it work? Because they believe. Kind of like self-fulfilling prophecies. They can believe in things others say are wrong, but if they believe it... it will work. It will seem as though their idea of God is true. And, things in their life and things that are happening in the world will verify the truth of their beliefs. But all of them believe different things.

Anyway, I don't see religions as a continuing progression but various and very different beliefs that change over time from within and from without. So please carry on with your discussion with Moz. I'm sure I will get a lot out of it.

 

[CG Didymus]

there is nothing like human interaction to get the human feel of things.

Yes, back in the 70"s, I went to lots of different religious groups. Usually long enough to see how they interact when they no longer felt they had to treat me nice because I might convert.

 

[oldbadger]

Just random. I had no idea it was considered a miracle.

Yep.
Bahais claim that when the Bab was taken out to be executed he was secured at a height so that many many ranks of guards could take aim at him, but when they fired on command there was much smoke from the guns and when it cleared away everybody saw that they not only missed their target but that the Bab was no longer there. He was found in his room, taken out and finally executed at the second attempt.

Miracle!

Would you like to join up?
You'll get a vote........ exclusive to Bahais.

NB. Dear Mods.... This not actually a sell. I'm a Deist. But Deists don't get to go to a heaven..... we're supposed to be in it already.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure. If you adopt a fairly restricted definition of "religion" that, who would have thought, does not stray too far from mainstream Abrahamic expectations.

Need not be a 'fairly restrictive' or otherwise. Later religions come out of older religions and change the teachings, which is what Buddhism and many sects of Hinduism did over time. This is fairly objective factual history of religions whether any particular one is true or false. You are deliberately hedging on the concept of co-popt one religion for another to justify your agenda against the Baha'i Faith.

Don your armour and join your squire Sancho Panza and joust the windmills protecting the religions of the world from evil co-opting religions the Baha'i Faith

I do not have any reason to do such a thing, and I would not advise anyone to.

You do not necessarily have a reason for anything you do.

That is better than many other implementations of Abrahamism, certainly.

But still falls far too short of what religion can and arguably should attempt to be.

Huh?!?!?!

For one thing, it is just way too obsessed with monotheism. That right there is a serious flaw.

Splitting frog hairs. You likely consider any belief in God(s) a serious flaw. Not a meaningful statement.

Honestly, I have come to the point that I wonder how come so many people still have time for strictly monotheistic doctrines. It is just so counterproductive, so much of an unnecessary distraction from religiosity proper.

Simply a statement of your belief, and not meaningful to the discussion beyond that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hi

Following is a quote that was given in answer earlier on another topic

The Faith of Islám, the succeeding link in the chain of Divine Revelation, introduced, as Bahá’u’lláh Himself testifies, the conception of the nation as a unit and a vital stage in the organization of human society, and embodied it in its teaching. This indeed is what is meant by this brief yet highly significant and illuminating pronouncement of Bahá’u’lláh: “Of old [Islamic Dispensation] it hath been revealed: ‘Love of one’s country is an element of the Faith of God.’” This principle was established and stressed by the Apostle of God, inasmuch as the evolution of human society required it at that time. Nor could any stage above and beyond it have been envisaged, as world conditions preliminary to the establishment of a superior form of organization were as yet unobtainable. The conception of nationality, the attainment to the state of nationhood, may, therefore, be said to be the distinguishing characteristics of the MuHammadan Dispensation, in the course of which the nations and races of the world, and particularly in Europe and America, were unified and achieved political independence.....
The Promised Day Is Come, pp. 119-121
I know this was not you but this was what started me on this so i will respond as if it is part of our discussion and you can address it if you wish.

I really don't know how to frame a response though because i can not think of a single reason why anyone could argue that the islamic model of government, which was basically Roman/ Persian style imperial rule was in any way a superior form of organisation. Nor has it proved to be down to this day. The nation states came out of the treaty of Westphalia amongst the Christian world not the Islamic.
I can understand how this view could come from an 19th century Persian worldview though as a global phenomenon the islamic model is actually anti nation state and political independence.

This is an interesting line of thought whether or not we agree or disagree. We are discussing the evolution of world civilisation and how humans have progressed from families, tribes, city states, nations and into what is now (arguably) an evolving world commonwealth.

In another passage Shoghi Effendi discusses this progression:

Unification of the whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage which human society is now approaching. Unity of family, of tribe, of city-state, and nation have been successively attempted and fully established. World unity is the goal towards which a harassed humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end. The anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the oneness and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its life.
Bahá'í Reference Library - The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 202-206

So has Islam contributed anything to this process and if so how? I had mention the Constitution of Medina and how that became extended to the Arabian Pennisula. Lets consider this in more detail in regards mainstream history. As you will appreciate the history of Muhammad is based not just on the Quran, but extends to the Hadiths and the Sirah Rasul Allah where there Medina Constitution can be found.There are of course all the other usual sources that any historian would use.

According to wikipedia in Muhammad's last years in Mecca, a delegation from Medina from its twelve important clans invited him as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community. There had been fighting in Medina involving mainly its pagan and Jewish inhabitants for around 100 years before 620. The recurring slaughters and disagreements over the resulting claims, especially after the Battle of Bu'ath in which all the clans had been involved, made it obvious to them that the tribal conceptions of blood feud and an eye for an eye were no longer workable unless there was one man with the authority to adjudicate in disputed cases. The delegation from Medina pledged themselves and their fellow citizens to accept Muhammad into their community and to protect him physically as if he was one of them.

After emigration to Medina, Muhammad drafted the constitution, "establishing a kind of alliance or federation" of the eight Medinan tribes and Muslim emigrants from Mecca and specifying the rights and duties of all citizens and the relationship of the different communities in Medina, including that of the Muslim community to other communities: the Jews and other "Peoples of the Book".

Constitution of Medina - Wikipedia

So the constitution formed the basis of a multi-religious Islamic state in Medina. The document ensured freedom of religious beliefs and practices for all citizens who "follow the believers". It assured that representatives of all parties, Muslim or non-Muslim, should be present when consultation occurs or in cases of negotiation with foreign states. It declared "a woman can only be hosted by a host with the consent of her family" and imposed a tax system for supporting the community in times of conflict. It declared the role of Medina as a sacred place, where no blood of the peoples included in the pact can be spilled.

There is general agreement on the authenticity of the most widely-read version of the charter, which is found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah.

Your referenced source Tom Holland writes, "The Constitution of Medina is accepted by even the most suspicious of scholars as deriving from the time of Muhammad. Here in these precious documents, it is possible to glimpse the authentic beginnings of a movement that would succeed, in barely two decades, in prostrating both the Roman and the Persian Empires"

The Constitution established: the security of the community, religious freedoms, the role of Medina as a sacred place (barring all violence and weapons), the security of women, stable tribal relations within Medina, a tax system for supporting the community in time of conflict, parameters for exogenous political alliances, a system for granting protection of individuals, a judicial system for resolving disputes, and also regulated the paying of blood-wite (the payment between families or tribes for the slaying of an individual in lieu of lex talionis).

Early social changes under Islam - Wikipedia

John Esposito sees Muhammad as a reformer who condemned practices of the pagan Arabs such as female infanticide, exploitation of the poor, usury, murder, false contracts, fornication, adultery, and theft. He states that Muhammad's "insistence that each person was personally accountable not to tribal customary law but to an overriding divine law shook the very foundations of Arabian society... Muhammad proclaimed a sweeping program of religious and social reform that affected religious belief and practices, business contracts and practices, male-female and family relations". Esposito holds that the Qur'an's reforms consist of "regulations or moral guidance that limit or redefine rather than prohibit or replace existing practices." He cites slavery and women's status as two examples.

Sorry to quote so much wikipedia but I'm certain many other mainstream historians and encyclopaedias will have a similar narrative.

So now we can see the far reaching implications of both social laws derived from the Quran itself (Sharia) and the constitution of Medina as applied to the whole Arabian Penisula and then through subsequent Caliphates after Muhammad's passing, it seems clear enough that the Muhammadian dispensation has been characterised by the state of nationhood.

I agree that the shape and character of Islamic governance was very different from those that derived from treaty of Westphilia. It may all come down to how we view the concept of nation and nationhood. Such a concept by definition don't require democratic institutions of government but can rely on theocratic forms as well as other forms of government too.

I'll try to respond to the rest of your post soon.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It seems you are aware of the contradictory nature of the crucifixion belief between the two faiths. I am not sure how both faiths can be messages from the same God if they contradict each others core spiritual teachings.
I would have thought the Bahai would have rejected the violent message of Islam and claimed to be a progression of the original christian message of peace before it was corrupted by politics and greed rather than try and mesh the three.
Again the Persian influence seems more the reason than any truth of the islamic message.

In regards the crucifixion I have posted to @Terry Sampson on another thread:

Baha'is accept the account of Christ's crucifixion in the New Testament being correct. The meaning of the Quranic verses is that Christ's Spirit was not crucified.

The relevant verses from the Quran:

Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
Quran 3:55 (Yusaf Ali translation)
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
Quran 4:157-158
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

"So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!
Quran 19:33
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

Though we cannot imagine exactly what the Manifestations of the remote past were like, we can be sure of two things: They must have been able to reach their fellow-men in a normal manner—as Bahá’u’lláh reached His generation, and They were sent from God and thus Divine Beings. The crucifixion as recounted in the New Testament is correct. The meaning of the Quranic version is that the spirit of Christ was not crucified. There is no conflict between the two."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 14, 1943)

Of course most Muslims believe Jesus was not literally crucified.

A Baha'i Conundrum (by invitation only)

I see Muhammad as promoting peace as evidenced by his role in Medina, the Quran and the Constitution of Medina as discussed above. Muhammad successfully enabled the Muslims to defend themselves against the aasault of their oppressors (The Quraysh). I don't believe He was a blood thirsty tyrannt as promoted by some Christian apologists. The Quran itself from an historic perspective has much stronger evidence as to it being reflective of what Muhammad taught than the Gospels reflecting what Jesus said and taught. However Baha'is accept the authenticity of the sacred scriptures of not just the Quran but the Christian Bible too. Do you believe the Persians had some influence on what was written in the Quran? if so how?

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure. If you adopt a fairly restricted definition of "religion" that, who would have thought, does not stray too far from mainstream Abrahamic expectations.

Note on belief from the Baha'i perspective:

The perspective of the Baha'is there are not specific religions. There is an organic spiritual process of the spiritual evolution of humanity that parallels our physical evolution that humans call religions, and the cyclic evolution of our physical existence. This evolving process involves individuals, groups, tribes and today the whole planet. This actually parallels the actual observed process of human history as well as the history of our known physical existence.

This much like the evolution of life and humanity. It is not a process of one species evolving to another but an organic process where populations continually evolve over time in terms of the diversity subspecies, and varieties continuously in what we artificially describe as species at any on specific time locate fossils or what we hypothetically call species today.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Okay brother. Tell me, is it Hard-dental or Cerebral pronunciation?
How do you say "What has already happened" in Sanskrit? And is it cerebral or dental?

"Atītāyām bhavitavyam" (Happened in the past).
't' is 'Dantya' (Dental), 'sparsha' (just a little touch between the teeth and the tongue), 'alpaprana' (pronounced quickly), and 'aghosha' (not loud).
Like 't' in French.
Sanskrit - Wikipedia