Baha'i Returns Thread: Ask Any of Many Baha'i

[Jcc1960]

Its not that God would have us die, he never intended that we die, its that mankind fell and by the sin of Adam (paul’s words not mine) death entered into the world, mankind was corrupted as with the entire creation with the taint of sin and Christ came down to restore us.

Yes, that is what Paul said. Do you think Paul interpreted the story of Adam as completely literal. I don’t think so, I think that the Apostles were wiser than that, and that they realized the true meaning is deeper, it is telling us about an inherent characteristic of humans, and did not assume that the significance resides in its literalness. Whether Paul was conscious of that or not is perhaps not essential, since he was inspired by Christ.

Modern science shows that there were humans on earth for at least hundreds of thousands of years, so Adam as the first human 6000 years ago could not be literal. Certainly Paul would have no knowledge of that, but my point is that, as God is Merciful, the literalness is not the basis of its meaning.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, that is what Paul said. Do you think Paul interpreted the story of Adam as completely literal. I don’t think so, I think that the Apostles were wiser than that, and that they realized the true meaning is deeper, it is telling us about an inherent characteristic of humans, and did not assume that the significance resides in its literalness. Whether Paul was conscious of that or not is perhaps not essential, since he was inspired by Christ.

Modern science shows that there were humans on earth for at least hundreds of thousands of years, so Adam as the first human 6000 years ago could not be literal. Certainly Paul would have no knowledge of that, but my point is that, as God is Merciful, the literalness is not the basis of its meaning.

I would agree with you 100%. Genesis is not a science manual.

 

[Jcc1960]

To what are you referring?

I am referring the the Revelation of Muhammad in the 6th century, and the Bab and Baha’u’llah in the 19th Century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reuben J View Post
The Church interpretation is that there will be no new revelation except what had been revealed by Jesus. He said, “it is finished.” When you have new revelation then you have altered the picture altogether as interpreted by the Church.

 

[Servant19]

Fair enough. I will only say that you are thinking in terms of this world of time and space and the physical realities which we experience in this life. This is something by which we are all hindered. As I have said before we are trying to comprehend the infinite world of the divine with very limited, finite minds.

We must acknowledge that there is a world of which we have no experience, of which we see fleeting glimpses and shadows. It is a world outside of our human experience. It cannot be measured or understood by the natural sciences or human reason. It is something of which we cannot know other than by direct, divine revelation. What has been revealed is the example of Christ, with a spiritual body capable of interacting with the physical world. Does it make sense within our human experience? No, it is not within our human experience. It is eternally above and beyond our natural world.

God bless.

Steve, this is almost an exact word for word description of what Baha’u’llah describes as the world in which we, as SOULS, reside in when we die

Very interesting nevertheless to explore together

 

[Reuben_J]

And the Church’s interpretation was correct, up to the 6th century, when God spoke again and the Church rejected Him, and again in the 19th century.

To be brief – because they were false prophets which Jesus warned us against.

Of course a new Revelation alters the picture and requires new interpretation just as it always has and always will.

That is why they were false prophets. God’s word is true and never will change nor is his message and revelation will be altered.

One does not need to embrace Judaism or Christianity to see that the same God is worshiped by both.

But it would be an incomplete knowledge of the same God. We realize all this actually.

Did Jesus or the Apostles tell the Jews that they worship a false God? No. Do Jews worship a false God? No, they worship the One True God, but they failed to recognize Christ, so their understanding of God is therefore lacking,

Yes, insofar they do not accept Jesus.

although Jesus said to the Samaritan woman “salvation is from the Jews”.

This quotation is insufficient. You should quote further on.

Salvation came from the lineage of Abraham until it came to Jesus who brings it. You are right if you admit that Jesus brings us salvation.

Jesus has come; there is nothing more. Everything one needs to know about salvation is from Jesus.

We follow neither Jewish nor Christian tradition, but it is possible to accept the validity of each within its own context. Christianity also fails to recognize Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah. That is unfortunate, but does not invalidate all of the truth that resides in the Church tradition.

Not unfortunate at all. Thanks God that the Church because she is led by the Holy Spirit does not fall to false prophets that Jesus warned us about. Enough said.

You Baha’is are entitled to your belief but Christian Church does not fall to these lies and therefore reject them. There is nothing unfortunate about it.

I am sorry if I sound blunt here, especially to Servant19 who has been cordial.

 

[Reuben_J]

Christianity also fails to recognize Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah. That is unfortunate, but does not invalidate all of the truth that resides in the Church tradition.

How can it not invalidate the truth of the Chruch? Mohammad claimed that Jesus is not God. This is a far cry of the Church’s truth and indeed contradictory. Chistianity core foundation of faith is built on the fact that Jesus is God, incarnated as man. Failure to accept Jesus as God, which Mohammad did, contradicted Christianity core faith. You cannot reconcile the two.

Now for some hard talk. If you say Mohammad and the Bab and Baha’u’llah as they were, where were they foretold in the Bible? I am saying since you accept the Bible.

I have told this Forum in this thread that:

• the Bible is one book pointing to Jesus Christ.
• Typology: the Old Testaments “types,” or prefigurations of Christ, anticipate His Redemptive work. (see CCC128)
• That “the New Testament is hidden in the Old, the Old Testament is revealed in the New.” (CCC 129)

If you are wishing to persuade Christians to accept your belief, then tell us where is Bab and Baha’u’llah being foretold as this should be a mark of true prophets? So tell, where are they foretold?

If not and if they contradict what have been revealed, then I cannot help but say they are false prophets. And as it is, yes, they are false because their appearances and teaching are not agreeing with the Church that compiled the Bible (which of course, include the Old Testament).

 

[Jcc1960]

To be brief – because they were false prophets which Jesus warned us against.

That is why they were false prophets. God’s word is true and never will change nor is his message and revelation will be altered.

But it would be an incomplete knowledge of the same God. We realize all this actually.

Yes, insofar they do not accept Jesus.

This quotation is insufficient. You should quote further on.

Salvation came from the lineage of Abraham until it came to Jesus who brings it. You are right if you admit that Jesus brings us salvation.

Jesus has come; there is nothing more. Everything one needs to know about salvation is from Jesus.

Not unfortunate at all. Thanks God that the Church because she is led by the Holy Spirit does not fall to false prophets that Jesus warned us about. Enough said.

You Baha’is are entitled to your belief but Christian Church does not fall to these lies and therefore reject them. There is nothing unfortunate about it.

I am sorry if I sound blunt here, especially to Servant19 who has been cordial.

Blunt but also thoughtful and honest is fine with me. You state the Christian perspective well, but in the Baha’i view it is incomplete. Jesus warned about false prophets, but He did not say that they way to tell them is by following centuries of religious tradition, and certainly not by following the current religious hierarchy. Of course there were not yet centuries of Christian tradition by that time, so you may assume that the Church would act differently than the Pharisees, but I do not make that assumption.

With regards to the quote “salvation is from the Jews” you are very right that it is not the complete context. The fuller context is I think broader than you allude to, however. Yes, it refers to Jesus coming from the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob via Jesse and David. But the Samaritans are also of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Do you know who the Samaritans are? They are the people of Israel, mainly the Northern Kingdom, who were not exiled to Babylon, rather they stayed behind, and intermarried with Assyrians, but they still worshiped God, and they have their own version of the Torah, which differs somewhat from the Jewish version. When the exiles returned and rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem, the Samaritans stayed separate from them, and there continued to be bad blood between Jews and Samaritans ever since. That was part of the context of Christ’s time that a lot of people don’t realize. Jesus showed love towards Samaritans that the Jews would not, although He did not endorse their theology.

 

[Reuben_J]

Blunt but also thoughtful and honest is fine with me. You state the Christian perspective well, but in the Baha’i view it is incomplete. Jesus warned about false prophets, but He did not say that they way to tell them is by following centuries of religious tradition, and certainly not by following the current religious hierarchy. Of course there were not yet centuries of Christian tradition by that time, so you may assume that the Church would act differently than the Pharisees, but I do not make that assumption.

With regards to the quote “salvation is from the Jews” you are very right that it is not the complete context. The fuller context is I think broader than you allude to, however. Yes, it refers to Jesus coming from the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob via Jesse and David. But the Samaritans are also of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Do you know who the Samaritans are? They are the people of Israel, mainly the Northern Kingdom, who were not exiled to Babylon, rather they stayed behind, and intermarried with Assyrians, but they still worshiped God, and they have their own version of the Torah, which differs somewhat from the Jewish version. When the exiles returned and rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem, the Samaritans stayed separate from them, and there continued to be bad blood between Jews and Samaritans ever since. That was part of the context of Christ’s time that a lot of people don’t realize. Jesus showed love towards Samaritans that the Jews would not, although He did not endorse their theology.

Sigh The reason why I am still on this thread is to correct wrong things said about Christianity. I would leave the Baha’is alone if it is not for that.

Of course I know about the Samaritans which by then were already very much the other lost tribes of Israel.

The promised Messiah nevertheless was from the shoot of Jesse. Of David. Of the tribe of Judah.

Similarly Abraham, Isaac. Yet the Muslims considered Mohammad and claim that he was from Ishmael. So what give when the covenant is made with Abraham and Isaac was the chosen one?

You can claim many things and yet God’s promise is clear. Salvation would ultimately brought about by Jesus, his Son, once and for all, for all generations and all nations, tribes and tongues.

 

[daler]

Now for some hard talk. If you say Mohammad and the Bab and Baha’u’llah as they were, where were they foretold in the Bible? I am saying since you accept the Bible.

If you are wishing to persuade Christians to accept your belief, then tell us where is Bab and Baha’u’llah being foretold as this should be a mark of true prophets? So tell, where are they foretold?

If not and if they contradict what have been revealed, then I cannot help but say they are false prophets. And as it is, yes, they are false because their appearances and teaching are not agreeing with the Church that compiled the Bible (which of course, include the Old Testament).

Reuben,
. There are many prophecies about the Bab (Gate) and Baha’u’llah (Glory of God) in the Bible. Please refer back to post 566 and 568 for just a few references to Baha’u’llah. When you have read these, please come back to this. Ok?

Then read on (substituting the Arabic words Baha’u’llah = Glory of God and Bab = Gate

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” MATTHEW 16:27

“For the Son of man shall come in Baha’u’llah with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” MATTHEW 16:27

Neh. 3:29 “…the gate that looketh toward the east: And the glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.”

Neh. 3:29 “And Baha’u’llah came into the house by the way of the Bab whose prospect is toward the east.”

. The three “Woes” are references to Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha’u’llah, although it will not be obvious without study of other prophecies. I just mention it, because you ask. Further, when it says “The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.”, this refers to how quickly Baha’u’llah (the third Woe) followed the Bab (the 2nd Woe), after the space of just 9 years.

. I went into detail some time back about the visions of Daniel, to which Christ Himself referred. Daniel had his vision in “Elam”, or Persia, which is SW Iran today. He foretold both when Messiah shall be cut off, in 70 weeks (490 years) in 33 AD and the 2nd coming at the time of the end, of the 2300 days (years) in 1844. Both of these dates originated in 457 BC

Revelation speaks of the 42 months (42 X 30 = 1260), also 1260, which is the year 1260 AH of the Muslim calendar (thus affirming Muhammad) which is the year 1844 AD, when the Bab declared His Mission in Persia (Elam)
… Daniel speaks not only of the time 360, times 720, and 1/2 time 180, which equal 1260, which again is the year 1844, but also of the years 1280 and 1290.
. As the Muslim calendar began in the 10th year of the Hijra, these two dates are the same, coinciding with the year 1863 (1280 AH), the year of Baha’u’llah’s public declaration, which is 1290 years after Muhammad’s declaration.

. It is important when looking at this to set aside one’s preconceived notions of Islam long enough to at least realize that these calendar dates do in fact coincide exactly with the 2300 days (years) of Daniel’s prophecy. This alone, when one sees it, puts Muhammad on the map.

. I can go into it further if you are ready for it, but if it is merely going to be huff huffed away, there is no point to it. These are not simply a few things put together on some vague whims, but very thoroughly researched, and not just from the Baha’i scholars. The entire Adventist Movement figured this out.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben,
. There are many prophecies about the Bab (Gate) and Baha’u’llah (Glory of God) in the Bible. Please refer back to post 566 and 568 for just a few references to Baha’u’llah. When you have read these, please come back to this. Ok?

Then read on (substituting the Arabic words Baha’u’llah = Glory of God and Bab = Gate

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” MATTHEW 16:27

“For the Son of man shall come in Baha’u’llah with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” MATTHEW 16:27

Neh. 3:29 “…the gate that looketh toward the east: And the glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.”

Neh. 3:29 “And Baha’u’llah came into the house by the way of the Bab whose prospect is toward the east.”

. The three “Woes” are references to Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha’u’llah, although it will not be obvious without study of other prophecies. I just mention it, because you ask. Further, when it says “The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.”, this refers to how quickly Baha’u’llah (the third Woe) followed the Bab (the 2nd Woe), after the space of just 9 years.

. I went into detail some time back about the visions of Daniel, to which Christ Himself referred. Daniel had his vision in “Elam”, or Persia, which is SW Iran today. He foretold both when Messiah shall be cut off, in 70 weeks (490 years) in 33 AD and the 2nd coming at the time of the end, of the 2300 days (years) in 1844. Both of these dates originated in 457 BC

Revelation speaks of the 42 months (42 X 30 = 1260), also 1260, which is the year 1260 AH of the Muslim calendar (thus affirming Muhammad) which is the year 1844 AD, when the Bab declared His Mission in Persia (Elam)
… Daniel speaks not only of the time 360, times 720, and 1/2 time 180, which equal 1260, which again is the year 1844, but also of the years 1280 and 1290.
. As the Muslim calendar began in the 10th year of the Hijra, these two dates are the same, coinciding with the year 1863 (1280 AH), the year of Baha’u’llah’s public declaration, which is 1290 years after Muhammad’s declaration.

. It is important when looking at this to set aside one’s preconceived notions of Islam long enough to at least realize that these calendar dates do in fact coincide exactly with the 2300 days (years) of Daniel’s prophecy. This alone, when one sees it, puts Muhammad on the map.

. I can go into it further if you are ready for it, but if it is merely going to be huff huffed away, there is no point to it. These are not simply a few things put together on some vague whims, but very thoroughly researched, and not just from the Baha’i scholars. The entire Adventist Movement figured this out.

I was late in joining this thread but I am sure this has been answered by other Christian posters already.

I know for sure that Bab and Baha’u’llah were not foretold in the Bible, my humble Bible knowledge notwithstanding. Thus I made the challenge. Unlike Jesus where references for him in the Old Testaments are many and where he quoted them, I do not see this in your prophets.

In any case, unless it points to this,

**“Salvation would ultimately brought about by Jesus, his Son, once and for all, for all generations and all nations, tribes and tongues,”**post #626

then other revelations and prophets are false. And they are of no use.

You can assemble horde of brilliant scholars to justify your new faith but the mystery of God can only be revealed to little children andthat he would make fools of the learned (paraphrase).

 

[Servant19]

I was late in joining this thread but I am sure this has been answered by other Christian posters already.

I know for sure that Bab and Baha’u’llah were not foretold in the Bible, my humble Bible knowledge notwithstanding. Thus I made the challenge. Unlike Jesus where references for him in the Old Testaments are many and where he quoted them, I do not see this in your prophets.

Hi Reuben, can we discuss some of these references to Jesus in the Old Testament please?

I have asked that we compare the way Jesus was prophesised about in the OT and how Baha’u’llah is prophesised about in the NT, but I cannot get many coherent responses.

I am aware that you posted a link a few posts back, giving many many references in the OT that refer to Jesus. But what I would like to know is HOW certain passages in the OT refers to Jesus. Specifically, how the Messiah was supposed to be the anointed King, how He was supposed to rule with a sword, and how He was supposed to bring the Jews back to their Promised Land amongst other things…

Thanks

In any case, unless it points to this,

**“Salvation would ultimately brought about by Jesus, his Son, once and for all, for all generations and all nations, tribes and tongues,”**post #626

Baha’u’llah’s Mission is not to bring about personal salvation, that task was already done and dusted. Lord Jesus has put an end to that age, where salvation was needed.

Baha’u’llah has come to herald the ushering in of the Kingdom of God on earth, the total, unfettered and purest unification of the human race that can ever be envisaged. Poets cannot fathom the beauty of Baha’u’llah’s vision for the human race

You can assemble horde of brilliant scholars to justify your new faith but the mystery of God can only be revealed to little children andthat he would make fools of the learned (paraphrase).

If I may offer a video for you where Baha’u’llah’s vision is being embraced and applied, let me know if the people in this video are children or the “learned”?

With heart bulging with love, I wish upon you the vernal showers of grace upon your person

youtube.com/watch?v=sESFu3M9MSw

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

And the Church’s interpretation was correct, up to the 6th century, when God spoke again and the Church rejected Him, and again in the 19th century.

That is an interesting claim as before the sixth century, before Muhammad Christians had defined their position, it was Nicea, it was Ephesus, it was Chalcedon, all of which bahai have to deny in terms of the positions these great councils held. That is we are told by the fathers by those whom the apostles left that Christ is God, that hte body has inherent value and will be risen physically from the dead, that the same happened to Christ, that we owe all to Christ. How can you possibly say we got it right untill the sixth century? Who inbetween that time was an orthodox Christian and “right”?

Did Jesus or the Apostles tell the Jews that they worship a false God? No. Do Jews worship a false God? No, they worship the One True God, but they failed to recognize Christ, so their understanding of God is therefore lacking, although Jesus said to the Samaritan woman “salvation is from the Jews”.

In failing to recognise Christ they have fundamentally denied God, one cannot be saved without Jesus Christ, the new testament makes this excessively clear. Jews don’t only say “we don’t know” they go as far as to deny him explicitely and there can be little hope for those who say such things. In rejecting Christ you cannot worship the true God because hte true God is jesus Christ, he is their creator, he is the one who will judge them, he is the one by whom the world is sustained.

We follow neither Jewish nor Christian tradition, but it is possible to accept the validity of each within its own context. Christianity also fails to recognize Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah. That is unfortunate, but does not invalidate all of the truth that resides in the Church tradition.

There are multiple reasons to reject Muhammad, he was for instance ignorant of what Christians actually believed, if the quran is any indication. He seemed to have thought that the ORthodox Christians got it right in that he says those who followed the desicples would be victorious tot he end of days, and the only qualifying people for that would be the Byzantine roman western roman world.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Yes, that is what Paul said. Do you think Paul interpreted the story of Adam as completely literal. I don’t think so, I think that the Apostles were wiser than that, and that they realized the true meaning is deeper, it is telling us about an inherent characteristic of humans, and did not assume that the significance resides in its literalness. Whether Paul was conscious of that or not is perhaps not essential, since he was inspired by Christ.

Modern science shows that there were humans on earth for at least hundreds of thousands of years, so Adam as the first human 6000 years ago could not be literal. Certainly Paul would have no knowledge of that, but my point is that, as God is Merciful, the literalness is not the basis of its meaning.

I know what Paul said, that death entered the world via one man. Im arguing creationism, but what I am arguing is that death is not natural, God did not create us to die, to rot in the ground, to suffer to live in lives in which abortion, death of infants and the like are “natural.” A good god would not create such a life, it is rather man’s fault that this has happened. Paul’s point is quite clear, that death has been defeated, that death was the final enemy that Jesus in his ressurection has destroyed. Why should we assume Paul is talking about a spiritual death and ressurection? What does that mean in the end? In the end according to bahai all human beings have been ressurected so what does Jesus’s do then?

 

[Servant19]

I know what Paul said, that death entered the world via one man. Im arguing creationism, but what I am arguing is that death is not natural, God did not create us to die, to rot in the ground, to suffer to live in lives in which abortion, death of infants and the like are “natural.” A good god would not create such a life, it is rather man’s fault that this has happened. Paul’s point is quite clear, that death has been defeated, that death was the final enemy that Jesus in his ressurection has destroyed. Why should we assume Paul is talking about a spiritual death and ressurection? What does that mean in the end? In the end according to bahai all human beings have been ressurected so what does Jesus’s do then?

Not sure about anyone else, but I am very confident indeed that I am not going to rot in the ground, and neither are my “lost before birth” children.

My wife has miscarried two children. She has seen both of them alive and well in the spiritual realm, has had wonderful conversations with them, and has even seen them grown up, for as they declared to her “there is no time here mummy, its endless paradise”

So, no, Ignatian, what Baha’u’llah has shared with us is to take delight in the knowledge that the life beyond this one is INFINITELY more glorious than the one where we are restrained by the physical body and its tendencies to fall, and we, as a family can declare to that miracle.

Personally, I would rather be “resurrected” into that realm than this one, and when my time is right and God picks the moment for my “ascent” into that realm, I am ready to partake in its delights, and prostrate myself humbly before my Lord for what He hath wrought…

My loved ones will be ready to get the party started!

…and I can’t wait…for death is a “messenger of joy”

“O SON OF THE SUPREME! I have made death a messenger of joy to thee. Wherefore dost thou grieve? I made the light to shed on thee its splendor. Why dost thou veil thyself therefrom?” - Baha’u’llah

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Not sure about anyone else, but I am very confident indeed that I am not going to rot in the ground, and neither are my “lost before birth” children.

My wife has miscarried two children. She has seen both of them alive and well in the spiritual realm, has had wonderful conversations with them, and has even seen them grown up, for as they declared to her “there is no time here mummy, its endless paradise”

So, no, Ignatian, what Baha’u’llah has shared with us is to take delight in the knowledge that the life beyond this one is INFINITELY more glorious than the one where we are restrained by the physical body and its tendencies to fall, and we, as a family can declare to that miracle.

Personally, I would rather be “resurrected” into that realm than this one, and when my time is right and God picks the moment for my “ascent” into that realm, I am ready to partake in its delights, and prostrate myself humbly before my Lord for what He hath wrought…

My loved ones will be ready to get the party started!

…and I can’t wait…for death is a “messenger of joy”

“O SON OF THE SUPREME! I have made death a messenger of joy to thee. Wherefore dost thou grieve? I made the light to shed on thee its splendor. Why dost thou veil thyself therefrom?” - Baha’u’llah

I will correct my text in that I mean to say I’m not arguing for Creationism, but i will ask you, why did your God create on purpose a life of suffering intentionally. That is your God has put death (which to Paul is final enemy, and to your prophet a friend) into this world from the start you would say, that he made this the natural process. He made cancer, sin and evil an integral part of the world in which it will seemingly reign forever. The point the apostle makes is that all these things have been defeated on the cross, that Christ’s ressurection is what awaits this entire world. In Christianity God does not leave his creation to its devices, he will put the world to rights, he will in his righteousness not suffer this world to exist as it is forever. The bahai however maintain that God has created a world which he has abandoned to all but its own pleasures, he cares not to end evil and he cares not to make himself known with miracles (in contrast to the God of the bible).

 

[Servant19]

I will correct my text in that I mean to say I’m not arguing for Creationism, but i will ask you, why did your God create on purpose a life of suffering intentionally. That is your God has put death (which to Paul is final enemy, and to your prophet a friend) into this world from the start you would say, that he made this the natural process. He made cancer, sin and evil an integral part of the world in which it will seemingly reign forever. The point the apostle makes is that all these things have been defeated on the cross, that Christ’s ressurection is what awaits this entire world. In Christianity God does not leave his creation to its devices, he will put the world to rights, he will in his righteousness not suffer this world to exist as it is forever. The bahai however maintain that God has created a world which he has abandoned to all but its own pleasures, he cares not to end evil and he cares not to make himself known with miracles (in contrast to the God of the bible).

…on the contrary…He cares greatly. He has created a universe where out of every act of suffering, freshers harvests are reaped.

Resistance, tests, trials and suffering are inbuilt into the grains of creation so that we may GROW from them.
Even when we take one step to walk forward we are RESISTED by the air. Its only when we overcome that air resistance that we can progress and move forwards.

The same goes with any spiritual tests. Overcome them and the radiance of our soul magnifies, making for a more fulfilling afterlife, closer to our Maker.

What is the point of monasticism, of fasting?. Suffering is an element to these acts of holiness, we are through these gestures enabled to TRANSCEND beyond our human shortfalls, stretch the bounds of physical endurance, so we can accustom ourselvers to physical hardships, through which we are enabled to focus more clearly on God, and enable his grace to shower our souls with radiant light.

info.bahai.org/article-1-3-4-7.html
(I know you have expressed difficulty with links in the past Philo, but just click the link and read the first paragraph, thats all. If you really care to know, read the next few paragraphs)

 

[Servant19]

Just to add.

When the final enemy has been conquered, it can easily be considered a friend.

Death was conquered by enabling the spiritual evolution of human consciousness to recognize that we are only on the second plane of existence. An infinite number of “undefinable” planes of reality await us, and we can FINALLY, have absolute faith, nay certitude, that death is NOT the end of life…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

…on the contrary…He cares greatly. He has created a universe where out of every act of suffering, freshers harvests are reaped.

Resistance, tests, trials and suffering are inbuilt into the grains of creation so that we may GROW from them.
Even when we take one step to walk forward we are RESISTED by the air. Its only when we overcome that air resistance that we can progress and move forwards.

The same goes with any spiritual tests. Overcome them and the radiance of our soul magnifies, making for a more fulfilling afterlife, closer to our Maker.

Yet my point stands, God leaves his creation to corruption, for death and he has no intention of fixing it. Ultimately this suggests one thing to me, that hte Bahai God considers death a good thing. Tell me, do you consider death a good thing? In all of its ramifications?

What is the point of monasticism, of fasting?. Suffering is an element to these acts of holiness, we are through these gestures enabled to TRANSCEND beyond our human shortfalls, stretch the bounds of physical endurance, so we can accustom ourselvers to physical hardships, through which we are enabled to focus more clearly on God, and enable his grace to shower our souls with radiant light.

info.bahai.org/article-1-3-4-7.html
(I know you have expressed difficulty with links in the past Philo, but just click the link and read the first paragraph, thats all. If you really care to know, read the next few paragraphs)

Monasticism is not to think of the material world as evil, rather it is dedicate one’s life solely to serving God, to not being especially dedicated to your own will but to give up all of life’s pleasures for that of God. Monks believe just as all Christians, the ressurection, they do not abhor physicality. But my ultimate point has not been addressed that God leaves the world and the universe to revel in evil forever, God does not put everything to rights, death reigns forever and has not been defeated.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Just to add.

When the final enemy has been conquered, it can easily be considered a friend.

Death was conquered by enabling the spiritual evolution of human consciousness to recognize that we are only on the second plane of existence. An infinite number of “undefinable” planes of reality await us, and we can FINALLY, have absolute faith, nay certitude, that death is NOT the end of life…

Um, in that case death has never needed to be conquered, its just an inevitable fact then. Are you trying to say that’s what Christ did? That in his ressurection he opened the world to the mystical reality of the afterlife? If you think death is so good, the greatest sacrament it seems (for it delivers us from these corrupt shells) do you think you ought celebrate death?

 

[Servant19]

Yet my point stands, God leaves his creation to corruption, for death and he has no intention of fixing it. Ultimately this suggests one thing to me, that hte Bahai God considers death a good thing. Tell me, do you consider death a good thing? In all of its ramifications?

Monasticism is not to think of the material world as evil, rather it is dedicate one’s life solely to serving God, to not being especially dedicated to your own will but to give up all of life’s pleasures for that of God. Monks believe just as all Christians, the ressurection, they do not abhor physicality. But my ultimate point has not been addressed that God leaves the world and the universe to revel in evil forever, God does not put everything to rights, death reigns forever and has not been defeated.

Why would you, as a monk want to surrender your own will, and all of lifes pleasures, if it was not obstructing you from God?

If lifes carnal pleasures are obstructing you from God, would you not say that they are evil?

Gods will is Godly, your own will, if not aligned with God’s will, is evil. God clearly wants us to detach from the things of this world.

Its been a figure and standard of monsticism for millenia. The Baha’i Faith proclaims the same thing, but requests that Baha’is achieve the same spiritual condition by carrying out selfless acts of service for mankind. SACRIFICING ourselves for others is another way of TRANSCENDING the carnal pleasures of this world, but the difference is that it creates the Kingdom of God on earth at the same time…