Why do believers believe what they believe?

[Trailblazer]

I remember those days when you believed in Baha'u'llah, and was doubtful of God's existence. That was an unusual aspect of you that caught my attention.

No Duane, I was NEVER doubtful of God's existence, I just did not believe like I do now. I knew God existed all along, I just did not know much about God's will or God's attributes and I did not know much about Manifestations of God until I read Gleanings, but now that I have read Gleanings about five times I know.

 

[Truthseeker]

At the 1988 National Convention, when delegates from around the country gathered to elect the next year's Assembly, External Affairs Secretary Firuz Kazemzadeh denounced a particular article slated for publication called A Modest Proposal and described those involved with the magazine as "dissidents".

I remember early on at Planet Baha'i that being referred to by "dissidents" that came there. They weren't Covenant-Breakers, but what I remember the issue was was that these people were claiming that when The Universal House of Justice was being described by Abdu'l-Baha as actually referring the LSA of Chicago, I believe, as having only men. In isolation in the context of what He was responding to from a woman in Chicago, it can look that way, and that Abdu'l-Baha corrected that temporary situation later. Looking at the totality of evidence however, that doesn't hold water. Responding this way publicly looks like a challenge to the Administration Order. It does to me, and Firuz Kazemzadeh felt the same way apparently. If you look at it that way privately there's not any harm in my view of believing that. The people were not Covenant-Breakers as they were not trying to set up an alternative organization, but "dissident" is a good word for them as they challenged the structure of the Administrate Order publicly.

Cole, who had made the most extensive public statements on the crackdown insists that he was threatened with being called a "covenant-breaker" if he did not stop posting his liberal views on email forums. (A covenant-breaker is a heretic who advocates a form of authority other than the Baha'i institutions. The penalty for this is shunning.) Baha'i officials deny that Cole was ever threatened.

Well, I would trust the Baha'i officials myself over one man. Seeing some of Juan's later statements cited in the article I saw which I initially quoted here looked like propaganda, making me less able to trust his word.

Both of these letters end with the warning that "your promulgation of views contrary to the Teachings was damaging to the Cause. If you were to resume in any fashion this course of action, the effect would be to bring you into direct conflict with the Covenant"; that is, they would be regarded as "covenant-breakers". The letters also make it clear that Birkland's instructions came from the supreme governing body of the Baha'i Faith, with its seat in Haifa.

That is not saying he would be regarded as a Covenant-Breaker. It is damaging to the Covenant, but to be Covenant-Breaker you would have to try to start an alternative organization, or join one.

Incidentally. throughout your citation David Langness was mentioned, and I've seen articles by him often at BahaiTeachings.org today. He seems to have mended his ways.

 

[CG Didymus]

Don't pretend that the Baha'i Faith believes in the Bible, as in believing it is the inerrant, infallible Word of God. Baha'is don't.

Yes, Baha'is don't believe the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. "Not necessarily historically accurate"? "The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation"? It is? If by Bible, Baha'is include the NT, then no. It is not reliable, because the Baha'is don't believe in the plan of salvation given in the NT. And again, neither do I. But again, I don't claim it is a reliable source for salvation. Here's a typical born-again Christian view of salvation...

When Adam and Eve rebelled, humans were separated from God through sin. God's holiness required punishment and payment (atonement) for sin, which was (and still is) eternal death. Our own death is not sufficient to cover the payment for sin. Only a perfect, spotless sacrifice, offered in just the right way, can pay for our sin. Jesus Christ, the perfect God-man, came to die on the cross, to offer the pure, complete and everlasting sacrifice to remove, atone, and make eternal payment for sin.​

​

​

Why? Because God loves us and desires an intimate friendship with us. God's plan of salvation has one goal, to connect God with his redeemed ones in the closest of relationships. The Lord of heaven and earth wants to walk with us, talk with us, comfort us and be with us through every experience of life.​

​

Those Christians got that from reading the NT. Do Baha'is believe their interpretations are correct? No.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, Baha'is don't believe the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. "Not necessarily historically accurate"? "The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation"? It is? If by Bible, Baha'is include the NT, then no. It is not reliable, because the Baha'is don't believe in the plan of salvation given in the NT. And again, neither do I. But again, I don't claim it is a reliable source for salvation. Here's a typical born-again Christian view of salvation...

I think that Abdu'l-Baha said that the Bible is a source of spiritual guidance but he said nothing about it being a source of salvation.

No, Baha'is do not believe in the 'plan of salvation' given in the NT, which states that all we have to do is believe in Jesus and that Jesus died for our sins and we will be saved. In this age salvation comes through Baha'u'llah because the sign of God in this age is Baha'u'llah, not Jesus.

“Blessed is the man that hath acknowledged his belief in God and in His signs, and recognized that “He shall not be asked of His doings.” Such a recognition hath been made by God the ornament of every belief, and its very foundation. Upon it must depend the acceptance of every goodly deed. Fasten your eyes upon it, that haply the whisperings of the rebellious may not cause you to slip ......​

​

Whoso hath not recognized this sublime and fundamental verity, and hath failed to attain this most exalted station, the winds of doubt will agitate him, and the sayings of the infidels will distract his soul. He that hath acknowledged this principle will be endowed with the most perfect constancy. All honor to this all-glorious station, the remembrance of which adorneth every exalted Tablet. Such is the teaching which God bestoweth on you, a teaching that will deliver you from all manner of doubt and perplexity, and enable you to attain unto salvation in both this world and in the next. He, verily, is the Ever-Forgiving, the Most Bountiful.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 86-87​

Please note that A Baháí View of the Bible is not from the authoritative Baha'i Writings, it is just a scholarly 'opinion.'
The following letter from the Guardian Shoghi Effendi represents the 'official' Baha'i view of the Bible.

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)​

​

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet....​

​

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)​

​

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments​

When Adam and Eve rebelled, humans were separated from God through sin. God's holiness required punishment and payment (atonement) for sin, which was (and still is) eternal death. Our own death is not sufficient to cover the payment for sin. Only a perfect, spotless sacrifice, offered in just the right way, can pay for our sin. Jesus Christ, the perfect God-man, came to die on the cross, to offer the pure, complete and everlasting sacrifice to remove, atone, and make eternal payment for sin.​

​

Why? Because God loves us and desires an intimate friendship with us. God's plan of salvation has one goal, to connect God with his redeemed ones in the closest of relationships. The Lord of heaven and earth wants to walk with us, talk with us, comfort us and be with us through every experience of life.​

​

Those Christians got that from reading the NT. Do Baha'is believe their interpretations are correct? No.

No, Baha'is do not believe that the Christian interpretations are correct. Below is what Baha'is believe is the significance of the cross sacrifice.

Question.—In verse 22 of chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians it is written: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” What is the meaning of these words?​

​

Answer.—Know that there are two natures in man: the physical nature and the spiritual nature. The physical nature is inherited from Adam, and the spiritual nature is inherited from the Reality of the Word of God, which is the spirituality of Christ. The physical nature is born of Adam, but the spiritual nature is born from the bounty of the Holy Spirit. The first is the source of all imperfection; the second is the source of all perfection.​

​

The Christ sacrificed Himself so that men might be freed from the imperfections of the physical nature and might become possessed of the virtues of the spiritual nature. This spiritual nature, which came into existence through the bounty of the Divine Reality, is the union of all perfections and appears through the breath of the Holy Spirit. It is the divine perfections; it is light, spirituality, guidance, exaltation, high aspiration, justice, love, grace, kindness to all, philanthropy, the essence of life. It is the reflection of the splendor of the Sun of Reality.​

Some Answered Questions, p. 118​

 

[Muffled]

I wanted to believe (keep believing) but I couldn't anymore.

I believe that happened with my wife. She didn't believe in the supernatural but after contracting a demon she could no longer hold that position because her experience was to the contrary.

 

[Muffled]

That's true, which is likely why many people visit psychiatrists and psychologists to "find out" who they are...and how to change so they can be happier, I suppose.

I believe people seek help with things they can't understand and often enough the psychiatrists have all the wrong theories and are only the blind leading the blind.

 

[Muffled]

It's something like, " My friend believes it, I believe my friend, so I believe it too".

As ole' Becky gal put it in Jesus Camp, "The Bible says it , I believe it, that settles it".

I believe I disagreed with what my friend believed but did not know why because I had not read the whole Bible. It was not enough to believe without evidence, so I had to read the Bible to see what it said. Also just because someone says the Bible says something, does not make it true.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I believe people seek help with things they can't understand and often enough the psychiatrists have all the wrong theories and are only the blind leading the blind.

How do you know that psychiatrists have all the wrong theories?

I'm curious to know what kind of authority and/or professional knowledge you have to make such a blanket statement.

 

[PureX]

I believe that happened with my wife. She didn't believe in the supernatural but after contracting a demon she could no longer hold that position because her experience was to the contrary.

I believe people seek help with things they can't understand and often enough the psychiatrists have all the wrong theories and are only the blind leading the blind.

I lived in Chicago for many years, and there used to be a TV preacher that had a half hour show every afternoon on an obscure channel (back in the days of analog broadcast tv). And his whole show every day was about casting out demons. All different kinds of demons that drove their victims to different kinds of destructive behaviors. I would have dismissed him immediately as a huckster except that he never asked for money or implied that anyone should give him anything. So I became a bit curious about him. He seemed in every way to be in earnest even though the stuff he was talking about was, to me, quite insane!

But as I came to understand his message better, I also came to realize that although he was using a very arcane and very superstition-laced religious language to discuss the problems he was discussing, and to lay out the solutions that he was proposing, he was actually doing so in keeping with the very problems a modern day psychologist or psychiatrist would encounter and diagnose, and offer a similar course of treatment for. And I was quite stunned by this. It had not occurred to me before that all that arcane, superstitious religious imagery and language might actually have been referring to the very same illnesses and issues that modern medicine deals with on a regular basis, and that in spite of the wild differences in imagery and language, they could be treated in similar ways.

This tv preacher was offering very real solutions to some very real problems among the poorest and least educated folks in the city. People that could never have afforded to go to a professional psychologist or psychiatrist and wouldn't have gone even if they could. AND, they wouldn't have understood a word those professionals said to them. But they could understand this preacher. They could understand things like addiction, and depression, and violent rage, etc., as a kind of "demon possession". And they could understand the simple, practical, "God-based" solutions that he was suggesting for them. And they could follow them.

I learned a big and important lesson from that preacher about seeing the real content of an experience instead of just seeing the imagery and the words being used to convey that content. I guess it was the old, "don't judge the book by it's cover" lesson. Or in this case don't judge the medicine by it's packaging. And the best thing about it was that it gave me a much greater appreciation for the people he was ministering to. I was able to understand and empathize with them instead of just dismissing them as ignorant and superstitious. When in fact they were just people living in a very different subculture from me, that used a different set of words and images than I'm used to.

 

[CG Didymus]

Incidentally. throughout your citation David Langness was mentioned, and I've seen articles by him often at BahaiTeachings.org today. He seems to have mended his ways.

I've read a couple other accounts of the "Dialogue" magazine and "Talisman" situation, and David Langness was involved. My only question is whether the Baha'i leadership, counselors and NSA and UHJ, are being too authoritarian. I can understand why you wouldn't think so, but if they are, to me, that's a big problem. And it's happened before in other religions where the leadership forces too much control over the people.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I lived in Chicago for many years, and there used to be a TV preacher that had a half hour show every afternoon on an obscure channel (back in the days of analog broadcast tv). And his whole show every day was about casting out demons. All different kinds of demons that drove their victims to different kinds of destructive behaviors. I would have dismissed him immediately as a huckster except that he never asked for money or implied that anyone should give him anything. So I became a bit curious about him. He seemed in every way to be in earnest even though the stuff he was talking about was, to me, quite insane!

But as I came to understand his message better, I also came to realize that although he was using a very arcane and very superstition-laced religious language to discuss the problems he was discussing, and to lay out the solutions that he was proposing, he was actually doing so in keeping with the very problems a modern day psychologist or psychiatrist would encounter and diagnose, and offer a similar course of treatment for. And I was quite stunned by this. It had not occurred to me before that all that arcane, superstitious religious imagery and language might actually have been referring to the very same illnesses and issues that modern medicine deals with on a regular basis, and that in spite of the wild differences in imagery and language, they could be treated in similar ways.

This tv preacher was offering very real solutions to some very real problems among the poorest and least educated folks in the city. People that could never have afforded to go to a professional psychologist or psychiatrist and wouldn't have gone even if they could. AND, they wouldn't have understood a word those professionals said to them. But they could understand this preacher. They could understand things like addiction, and depression, and violent rage, etc., as a kind of "demon possession". And they could understand the simple, practical, "God-based" solutions that he was suggesting for them. And they could follow them.

I learned a big and important lesson from that preacher about seeing the real content of an experience instead of just seeing the imagery and the words being used to convey that content. I guess it was the old, "don't judge the book by it's cover" lesson. Or in this case don't judge the medicine by it's packaging. And the best thing about it was that it gave me a much greater appreciation for the people he was ministering to. I was able to understand and empathize with them instead of just dismissing them as ignorant and superstitious. When in fact they were just people living in a very different subculture from me, that used a different set of words and images than I'm used to.

Interesting. Carl Jung was exploring an approach perhaps not a million miles from this, with his theories of archetypes, and the collective unconscious.

I've often wondered how psychiatry might have built on the work of Freud, Jung, Adler etc, if the revolution in pharmacological treatments for psychiatric disorders hadn't rather sidelined talking therapies as treatments for acute psychoses.

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe that happened with my wife. She didn't believe in the supernatural but after contracting a demon she could no longer hold that position because her experience was to the contrary.

But the Baha'i Faith doesn't believe in them. So, who's telling the truth? Christians or Baha'is?

In regard to your question concerning evil spirits and their influence upon souls, Shoghi Effendi wishes me to inform you that what is generally called evil spirit is a purely imaginary creation and has no reality whatever.​

​

As to the question of evil spirits, demons and monsters, any references made to them in the Holy Books have symbolic meaning. What is currently known among the public is but sheer superstition.​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá​

 

[PearlSeeker]

I believe that happened with my wife. She didn't believe in the supernatural but after contracting a demon she could no longer hold that position because her experience was to the contrary.

Instead of "supernatural" I would rather use a different word - unusual/unexplained phenomenons ... Even if demons exist for real they are part of nature. Also some medical conditions (e. G. epilepsy) were in the past regarded as a demon possession.

 

[Sirona]

Some atheists have claimed that believers believe in their religion and in God because they want to believe, and the implication is that believers have no evidence for their religion or God’s existence, so the 'only reason' they believe is because they want to believe.

I have replied that I believe because of the evidence for God and my religion, not because I want to believe. I have gone through periods in my life where I have not wanted to believe in God or be a Baha’i but I retained my belief because of the evidence for Baha’u’llah. Other times I wanted to believe, but that is not the reason for my belief, I believe because of the evidence. When I stumbled upon the Baha’i Faith during my first year of college, the very last thing I was looking for was God or a religion. I just happened to find it, investigate it, and then I believed it was true. That was over 50 years ago.

I am not saying that all believers believe in their religion or in God because of the evidence, I am only speaking for myself. Some believers might believe because they want to believe and some believers might believe for other reasons, such as having been brought up in a particular religion, or maybe even because society expects people to believe in God. These are not the reasons I believe. I was not brought up in any religion or with a belief in God and I always went against societal expectations and societal norms. The Baha'i Faith is an unconventional religion, but I am too unconventional to fit in the Baha’i community so I do my own thing.

Believers could say the same thing to atheists, that atheists don’t believe in God because they don’t want to believe, since there is evidence for God’s existence. Maybe some believers have said that, but I never have. When atheists tell me that they don’t believe in God because there is no evidence, I take them at their word. They do not ‘see’ any evidence for God so they don’t believe in God. Why then don’t they take me at my word when I say I believe because of the evidence? It is because they don’t ‘believe’ there is any evidence, so in their minds that means believers cannot believe because of the evidence.

Nobody can ever know why a person believes or disbelieves except that person, so I don't think people should speak for other people and tell them why they believe or disbelieve. They should take them at their word because otherwise they are as much as calling that other person a liar.

I do believe that people convert to a (different) religion (often in a situation of crisis or change) because the new religion fulfills psychological needs of the convert and reduces psychological pressure. If I wanted to know why I converted, I would look into my personal biography if I were you. Religious sentiment is a subjective experience, so I would consider the egg dance of whether there are "objective" reasons for belief or disbelief to be a cop-out, unless, of course, this thread was a lame excuse to publish Baha'i content for the heck of it.

 

[Truthseeker]

I've read a couple other accounts of the "Dialogue" magazine and "Talisman" situation, and David Langness was involved. My only question is whether the Baha'i leadership, counselors and NSA and UHJ, are being too authoritarian. I can understand why you wouldn't think so, but if they are, to me, that's a big problem. And it's happened before in other religions where the leadership forces too much control over the people.

Well, I can understand why you have that question, as it's happened before in other religions. It makes things that have happened look more suspicious on the outside looking in. Yes, my faith is a factor in how I see this.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Some atheists have claimed that believers believe in their religion and in God because they want to believe, and the implication is that believers have no evidence for their religion or God’s existence, so the 'only reason' they believe is because they want to believe...........................

I suppose wanting to believe is at least a start before doing research. - Acts 17:11
For one thing, evidence for me is found in the world's governments.
To me, in the BIG picture we find there are really only two (2) candidates, two (2) sides:
1) Who mankind has to offer
2) Who God has to offer: Christ Jesus

The issue is: Sovereignty:

A* Man's economy ($) has limited power as we can see in famine or world hunger.
B* Jesus has the ability to feed thousands using just a few fish and bread - Mark 14

A* Man is often slow to respond to disasters/ earthquakes
B* Jesus can control weather phenomenon - Mark 4

A* Man can't control the environment even with man's go-green policies. Pollution has put Earth perhaps about 2 degrees hotter.
B* Jesus will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth - Rev. 11:18 B

A* Man's health care is expensive doctors, hospitals and drugs.
B* Jesus cured people on a small scale showing what he will do on a large-global scale - Matt. 15:30; Mark 5:38-42 ; Rev. 22:2

A* Man's security and protection is Not proving safe in either small ways or large terrorism.
B* Jesus security and protection is done by on-demand by him - Matt. 8:16

So, unlike man's sovereignties that are always changing hands, Jesus Sovereignty is going to be permanent. - 1st Tim. 6:15-16
This is why we are all invited to pray the invitation to God for Jesus to come ! Rev. 22:20, 2
Come and bring lasting just-and-righteous rulership to Earth for us - Psalm 2:12; Psalm 22:26

 

[Muffled]

How do you know that psychiatrists have all the wrong theories?

I'm curious to know what kind of authority and/or professional knowledge you have to make such a blanket statement.

I believe that is from what I have read, hard or seen. I worked at a mental institution for a while so I know more than the average person.

I believe I know about spiritual things from the Bible which is something most psychologists seem to avoid.

 

[Muffled]

I lived in Chicago for many years, and there used to be a TV preacher that had a half hour show every afternoon on an obscure channel (back in the days of analog broadcast tv). And his whole show every day was about casting out demons. All different kinds of demons that drove their victims to different kinds of destructive behaviors. I would have dismissed him immediately as a huckster except that he never asked for money or implied that anyone should give him anything. So I became a bit curious about him. He seemed in every way to be in earnest even though the stuff he was talking about was, to me, quite insane!

But as I came to understand his message better, I also came to realize that although he was using a very arcane and very superstition-laced religious language to discuss the problems he was discussing, and to lay out the solutions that he was proposing, he was actually doing so in keeping with the very problems a modern day psychologist or psychiatrist would encounter and diagnose, and offer a similar course of treatment for. And I was quite stunned by this. It had not occurred to me before that all that arcane, superstitious religious imagery and language might actually have been referring to the very same illnesses and issues that modern medicine deals with on a regular basis, and that in spite of the wild differences in imagery and language, they could be treated in similar ways.

This tv preacher was offering very real solutions to some very real problems among the poorest and least educated folks in the city. People that could never have afforded to go to a professional psychologist or psychiatrist and wouldn't have gone even if they could. AND, they wouldn't have understood a word those professionals said to them. But they could understand this preacher. They could understand things like addiction, and depression, and violent rage, etc., as a kind of "demon possession". And they could understand the simple, practical, "God-based" solutions that he was suggesting for them. And they could follow them.

I learned a big and important lesson from that preacher about seeing the real content of an experience instead of just seeing the imagery and the words being used to convey that content. I guess it was the old, "don't judge the book by it's cover" lesson. Or in this case don't judge the medicine by it's packaging. And the best thing about it was that it gave me a much greater appreciation for the people he was ministering to. I was able to understand and empathize with them instead of just dismissing them as ignorant and superstitious. When in fact they were just people living in a very different subculture from me, that used a different set of words and images than I'm used to.

I believe this is a syndrome of blaming demons for every bad thing that happens rather than sin but I can imagine an audience that would prefer that to admitting that sin was their problem.

I believe that is more likely a false perception on your part.

I believe it is highly unlikely that demons are responsible for all of that. The father of my grandson would shop lift but have no memory of doing so. That is characteristic of demon possession. He is being treated for schizophrenia which means that he takes drugs that can block his spiritual connection thereby blocking the demon. That is necessary because he won't admit that he has a demon.

 

[Muffled]

But the Baha'i Faith doesn't believe in them. So, who's telling the truth? Christians or Baha'is?

In regard to your question concerning evil spirits and their influence upon souls, Shoghi Effendi wishes me to inform you that what is generally called evil spirit is a purely imaginary creation and has no reality whatever.​

​

As to the question of evil spirits, demons and monsters, any references made to them in the Holy Books have symbolic meaning. What is currently known among the public is but sheer superstition.​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá​

I believe Christianity is correct and Bahai's have false beliefs in this regard.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe Christianity is correct and Bahai's have false beliefs in this regard.

I believe the Baha'i Faith is correct and Christians have false beliefs in this regard.