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

[PRmerger]

Dear friend with no disrespect to yourself, if you study the Word of Jesus concerning false Prophets or even the anti-Christ you will find quite clearly that Baha’u’llah does not fit His (Christ) descriptions, the very opposite.

Some of the teachings of Baha’u’llah are indeed contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church.

That does indeed make it a false religion with false prophets.

Also if you feel that the teachings of Baha’u’llah are different to the teachings of Christ, again with respect to you, they must be in your own mind, for millions of people see otherwise.

The fact that millions of people see otherwise is no testimony to a truth. A lie can be believed by millions as well as a truth.

It is therefore irrelevant how many people are Baha’i.

 

[SteveVH]

While I have found the Baha’i threads quite interesting, and the Baha’i posters very charitable, it seems that it has become nothing more than rehashing the same old stuff, over and over again at this point.

What I have found is some very striking parallels between the Baha’i faith and the Mormon faith from this perspective:

The Mormon faith claims to have restored the original Church which purportedly went off the rails almost immediately after the founding of the Church by Jesus Christ. From the Mormon point of view, Christianity had it all wrong, for nearly 2000 years, until Joseph Smith arrived, less than 200 years ago. The problem is that no unique Mormon doctrine, claimed as a restoration of the original, can be found in the earliest writings of the original Church.

The Baha’i faith, similarly, claims to have revealed the truth and unity of all religions by claiming that all religions have had it wrong all these years. The Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, etc. never really understood what their own prophets were teaching them. Instead it would require Baha’u’llah to come along, again, less than 200 years ago, and set everyone straight. Yet these so-called unique Baha’u’llah beliefs cannot be found in the writings of any of the original “prophets” which they profess to follow.

My conclusion is that they are both man-made religions which ignore or deny the actual words of those they profess to follow in favor of their own “unique” beliefs which are nothing more than bits and pieces of other religions thrown together and declared something new. Both Baha’u’llah and Joseph Smith claim to be greater than Jesus Christ in one way or another and seek to turn our eyes away from Him and focus instead on themselves.

Just an observation.

 

[doormouse73]

Usually angels are meant to describe the purity and evanescence of the soul.

Sorry… No supernatural lucifers in our Faith…

that mythology about Lucifer as a fallen angel and war in heaven are mostly for us considered a story having little literal meaning in spite of the literally masterpiece by John Milton.

But usually those who oppose the new Manifestation of God are associated with the anti-Christ or Dajjal…

We do not believe in Anti-Christ in the sense the Christians do. Anyone who violently and determinedly sought to oppose the Manifestation could be called an “anti-Christ,” such as the Vazir in the Báb’s day, Haji Mirza Aqasi.

(Shoghi Effendi, High Endeavours -  Messages to Alaska, p. 69)

The word “satanic” can be seen in the Baha’i writings but usually not in the sense it is understood by some who accept a “literal supernatural being” like the fallen angel. Here are some examples of how we use the term “satanic”:

***Peace is the foundation of God; war is satanic institution.

---

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 231)

What causes the change in the individuality? It comes through the acquirement of evil habits. God originally endowed man with an individuality which enjoyed that which was beneficial and shunned the drug; but man through his evil habits changes this creation and transforms the divine illumination into satanic darkness.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 133)

Baha’u’llah uses the term "satanic as follows:

Perplexing and difficult as this may appear, the still greater task of converting satanic strength into heavenly power is one that We have been empowered to accomplish. The Force capable of such a transformation transcendeth the potency of the Elixir itself. The Word of God, alone, can claim the distinction of being endowed with the capacity required for so great and far-reaching a change.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 200)

after reading those that you have just gave me… can you not see the word evilin there to explain that there is the devil at work…war is not in the mind is it?

and the last one you gave it has nothing to do with drinking potion from a white rabbit on the moon potion,either…

again ill ask the question…do you believe that there are seven deadly sins???

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The Baha’i view of the sanctity of life is somewhat distinct from that of other faiths that I am aware of. We do believe that God intends for us is to develop spiritually, and progress in the spiritual worlds after the death of our body. But it would be completely incorrect to think that we therefore do not value physical life. On the contrary, our physical life on earth is essential, and is something to be cherished and not wasted. That means not only that premature death should be avoided, but also that our lives should not be wasted by living a life of selfishness or hatred. We are given this time on earth to grow both physically and spiritually, and importantly, that is the only way that God creates new humans.

Baha’is believe that the Kingdom of God on earth is realized when the great majority of people love and worship God, and act towards one another as God intended, with love respect and kindness, they work hard to serve God and their fellow man, they raise children who do the same. Human civilization will progress both materially and spiritually, war will be ended, education be made universal. As Isaiah said, “They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.”

This is what our physical life on earth can and will be, it is good and wonderful, and a gift from God. But, we are still spiritual beings, and after a life well lived on earth, our eternal home is with God in His heavenly kingdom.

The problem with that implies that it is better to live and grow than it is to be dead, which undercuts the entire idea of trying to say death is good, to be celebrated. Anything in this life is nothing when compared to the pure spiritual reality that awaits one after death, so what does a life in flesh accomplish beyond learning what you will know immediately in the spirit world? Your God may give some arbitrary value to life which you have to accept, but it seems contradictory, an unnatural theology which believes something it really shouldn’t. If God intended for us to live lives in which we grow, why did he (and bahai seem to believe this) design a world from the beginning in which death is such a prevailing force, that abortion can happen “naturally,” that the very way in which we as a species evolve is through Billions of death of billions, no trillions of organisms. Bahai make a big deal of the natural but it seems that in some cases God deliberately created an evil in the world, which is far different from the Christian conception of death entering the world through Human sin. That evil of course being, death itself, disease, starvation and etc.

Again, you can tell me what you believe, but I see nothing but a contradiction.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Peace is the foundation of God; war is satanic institution.

(Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith - Abdu’l-Baha Section, p. 231)

So Bahai do not believe God commanded Moses and Joshua to slaughter their enemies?

 

[Servant19]

No disrespect but actually it is not unfair to state contradiction because the word of God states if ANYONE teaches a gospel other then what I have taught stay away from them it is not from God.

Hi rinnie, it is “by their FRUITS, ye shall know them”

Make I ask, have you “tested the spirit” of Baha’u’llahs Revelation and observed the “fruits” of His Revelation, and how it is manifested practically in the world??

Surely, assessing a gospel’s credibility is through DEEDS, not WORDS alone?

 

[PRmerger]

Hi rinnie, it is “by their FRUITS, ye shall know them”

Make I ask, have you “tested the spirit” of Baha’u’llahs Revelation and observed the “fruits” of His Revelation, and how it is manifested practically in the world??

Surely, assessing a gospel’s credibility is through DEEDS, not WORDS alone?

True. But it is also not only by DEEDS alone.

For can we not agree that the DEEDS of Mormons are quite charitable, kind and humane. Their family values are exemplary. They are some of the nicest, meekest, wonderful people.

But that does not make the faith the they profess true.

 

[Jcc1960]

The problem with that implies that it is better to live and grow than it is to be dead, which undercuts the entire idea of trying to say death is good, to be celebrated. Anything in this life is nothing when compared to the pure spiritual reality that awaits one after death, so what does a life in flesh accomplish beyond learning what you will know immediately in the spirit world? Your God may give some arbitrary value to life which you have to accept, but it seems contradictory, an unnatural theology which believes something it really shouldn’t. If God intended for us to live lives in which we grow, why did he (and bahai seem to believe this) design a world from the beginning in which death is such a prevailing force, that abortion can happen “naturally,” that the very way in which we as a species evolve is through Billions of death of billions, no trillions of organisms. Bahai make a big deal of the natural but it seems that in some cases God deliberately created an evil in the world, which is far different from the Christian conception of death entering the world through Human sin. That evil of course being, death itself, disease, starvation and etc.

Again, you can tell me what you believe, but I see nothing but a contradiction.

The source of the apparent contradiction is that you are insisting that “eternal life” means living forever in a body (albeit a glorified one) on earth. Is that what you think Jesus meant by eternal life? And when He said " whoever drinks from the water I give him shall never thirst", do you think that means the glorified body has no need to drink physical water? If that is what you really believe, then of course you see contradictions.

There is a huge contradiction in your belief, perhaps you have not noticed. Your interpretation of a fixed number of people living eternally on a physical earth, without sex or reproduction, without any need to learn or grow or in any way transcend their current existence and reach a higher level is contrary to the abundance of life that God grants as the Creator. It is a constrained view of God’s greatness and mercy, and of man’s nobility.

I fully understand that the Church early on debated the meaning of eternal life and death, but if the result of that debate, in your opinion, leads to the future I just described, then I think it leads to a false choice, and contradictory conclusions.

 

[PRmerger]

The source of the apparent contradiction is that you are insisting that “eternal life” means living forever in a body (albeit a glorified one) on earth.

Actually, it is a new heaven and a new earth.

 

[happyme]

Actually I must disaree with you. The teachings of Christ are not of my own mind. If they were I would be Protestant.

I do not and cannot interpret scripture. Christ left us the Church. Scripture is taught to us by the Church with the mind of Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Dear Christian brother, I see that to talk with you further would be a waste of time.

I just trust that you understand that blind obedience will not be sufficient with either Christ or God, one has to follow with understanding of the Word. Blind obedience was what the priests of Jesus day required of their followers also.

Anyway I see you do not wish to discuss, you are happy with your own decision, I wish you well.

Peace to you.

 

[PRmerger]

Dear Christian brother, I see that to talk with you further would be a waste of time.

I just trust that you understand that blind obedience will not be sufficient with either Christ or God, one has to follow with understanding of the Word. Blind obedience was what the priests of Jesus day required of their followers also.

Anyway I see you do not wish to discuss, you are happy with your own decision, I wish you well.

Peace to you.

No one has posited that we are to blindly follow the Church, happyme.

That is a heresy known as fideism and has been condemned by the Church.

What rinne is professing has nothing to do with blind obedience. Rather, it has everything to do with understanding the Word of God through the lens of the faith which gave us His Words.

 

[happyme]

Example

Jesus told the Jews he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in 3 days. I would see that as the Jews did, Jesus would tear it down brick by brick and rebuild it.

But see the Church is who teaches us the mind of Jesus. His body is the temple that rose again from the dead on the third day.

If I were to define the bible for you it could and probally would seem to be in direct conflict with the word of GOd.

But see scripture does not conflict scripture. If it does it is because of human understanding not divine.

That is why admit I have no authority to define scripture. The Church does.

Dear Christian friend, what you say here is pure Baha’i teachings also.
And you are quite true in what you say here:- But see scripture does not conflict scripture. If it does it is because of human understanding not divine.
Again Baha’i teachings.

Peace and love to you.

 

[happyme]

Also you admited yourself that the word of God clearly defines your faith to be opposite.

ANd how can you still have the faith of Christ and still identifywith Bahai.

Could you quote revelation for me where it makes this claim. thanks.

My friend where did this comment come from? quote:Also you admited yourself that the word of God clearly defines your faith to be opposite.end quote
Where did I say such a thing?

Quite simply because Christ and Baha’u’llah are the same, as we believe Baha’u’llah is the second coming.

In revelation it tells you that at the second coming the Messenger will have a new name and also His followers. Here 3,12 and in other verses.

Peace to you

 

[happyme]

Some of the teachings of Baha’u’llah are indeed contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church.

That does indeed make it a false religion with false prophets.

The fact that millions of people see otherwise is no testimony to a truth. A lie can be believed by millions as well as a truth.

It is therefore irrelevant how many people are Baha’i.

I have studied the Baha’i Faith for more than 23 years I see nothing contrary to Christ’s teachings or God’s, but then they disputed with similar words against Christ also.

And as you say no numbers certainly do not prove the truth, only investigation and honesty. I find this amusing that you say: A lie can be believed by millions as well as a truth.

That you refuse to believe, I can live with my friend, we all have free will.
Peace to you

 

[PRmerger]

I have studied the Baha’i Faith for more than 23 years I see nothing contrary to Christ’s teachings or God’s, but then they disputed with similar words against Christ also.

The fact that you don’t believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus is pretty much a biggie as far as being contrary to Christianity.

As well as denying the 7 sacraments.

And that Jesus is the Lamb of God.

Your prophet did not die as the Lamb of God, atoning for our sins.

So those are pretty much incompatible with Christianity, happyme.

That you refuse to believe, I can live with my friend, we all have free will.
Peace to you

Right back at 'cha!

 

[Jcc1960]

Actually, it is a new heaven and a new earth.

Ok, PRmerger, and I recall you seeming to make the connection that one can be in heaven while on earth, because heaven is not a place, it is a condition. Do I recall that correctly? If so, I would agree with that at least.

However, life without growth or change is simply not life. That is the biggest contradiction in a literalist view of eternal life in a body that never changes. It is meaningless to even call that life.

IgnatianPhilo sees evil in the cycle of birth, growth, reproduction and death of the physical body. Do you see that as evil? Do you think God would prefer to have a limited number of people for eternity, no babies being born? Or is God’s creation limitless, with an endless succession of humans being born, growing physically and spiritually, and living forever in spirit, while the body makes way for the next generation?

That is fully consistent with saying that death is the result of sin, because you can see every day people who deny God, live a selfish life and die spiritually inside, even though their body may be healthy and strong. And Christ redeems us from our sin, but only those who have faith (and do works, but that is a separate debate), and that brings the spirit back to life, it grants us eternal life, not one that can rot in the grave.

Do you see that that a fully consistent belief, without contradiction?

 

[SteveVH]

Dear Christian friend, what you say here is pure Baha’i teachings also.
And you are quite true in what you say here:- But see scripture does not conflict scripture. If it does it is because of human understanding not divine.
Again Baha’i teachings.

Peace and love to you.

In other words if I say that 1 + 1 = 3 and you say it equals 2, neither of us is wrong. The apparent contradiction in conclusions is just due to our human understanding?

I say that Christ rose from the dead, bodily as well as spiritually.

You say that there was no resurrection of the body.

And you see no contradiction.

Amazing.

What am I missing?

 

[PRmerger]

However,** life** without growth or change is simply not life. That is the biggest contradiction in a literalist view of eternal life in a body that never changes. It is meaningless to even call that life.

What about eternal life?

Does eternal life change eternally? Infinitely?

Do you think God would prefer to have a limited number of people for eternity, no babies being born?

I have no idea. God has not revealed whether He prefers to have a limited number of people?

Or is God’s creation limitless, with an endless succession of humans being born, growing physically and spiritually, and living forever in spirit, while the body makes way for the next generation?

Well, logic tells me that this is ridiculous. Creation being limitless means creation is infinite. Which means that creation is God.

Absurd.

That is fully consistent with saying that death is the result of sin, because you can see every day people who deny God, live a selfish life and die spiritually inside, even though their body may be healthy and strong.

Yes.

And Christ redeems us from our sin, but only those who have faith (and do works, but that is a separate debate), and that brings the spirit back to life, it grants us eternal life, not one that can rot in the grave.

No.

Faith does not bring eternal life. Grace does.

Do you see that that a fully consistent belief, without contradiction?

I am not understanding the above question.

 

[Servant19]

Why is there a Christian assumption that just because something is limitless or infinite in some aspect, that it makes it equal to God?

The universe itself may very well be infinite and limitless in size, but that doesn’t make it God…

 

[Servant19]

While I have found the Baha’i threads quite interesting, and the Baha’i posters very charitable, it seems that it has become nothing more than rehashing the same old stuff, over and over again at this point.

What I have found is some very striking parallels between the Baha’i faith and the Mormon faith from this perspective:

The Mormon faith claims to have restored the original Church which purportedly went off the rails almost immediately after the founding of the Church by Jesus Christ. From the Mormon point of view, Christianity had it all wrong, for nearly 2000 years, until Joseph Smith arrived, less than 200 years ago. The problem is that no unique Mormon doctrine, claimed as a restoration of the original, can be found in the earliest writings of the original Church.

The Baha’i faith, similarly, claims to have revealed the truth and unity of all religions by claiming that all religions have had it wrong all these years. The Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, etc. never really understood what their own prophets were teaching them. Instead it would require Baha’u’llah to come along, again, less than 200 years ago, and set everyone straight. Yet these so-called unique Baha’u’llah beliefs cannot be found in the writings of any of the original “prophets” which they profess to follow.

My conclusion is that they are both man-made religions which ignore or deny the actual words of those they profess to follow in favor of their own “unique” beliefs which are nothing more than bits and pieces of other religions thrown together and declared something new. Both Baha’u’llah and Joseph Smith claim to be greater than Jesus Christ in one way or another and seek to turn our eyes away from Him and focus instead on themselves.

Just an observation.

Hi Steve, when you say that the Bahai Faith ignores or denies the actual words of those they profess to follow, can I ask you why then do Christians deny the fact that Jesus calls Himself a prophet?

Also, why does it state categorically in 1Corinthians that the body is sown a natural body, but is raised a spiritual body? Why does it not say that it is raised a glorified body?

These are the only two areas of seeming “conflict” and Bahai denial. What is your response?

I also still await a response to how Jesus fulfilled the conditions of being the Messiah

Thanks