Baha'i V

[Servant19]

Dear Nick

Peace be with you brother.

I have a question relating to Baha’u’llah’s marriages: When Baha’u’llah married his second and third wives was he not a Babi and therefore under the marriage laws of the Bab?

He married his second wife, Fatimih in 1849 and he married his third wife, Gawhar, in 1862. The Bab declared himself a Manifestation of God in 1844.

Did the Bab not promote monogamy and limit a man to one wife except in a case of infertility, in which they could have a second wife?

How then was Baha’u’llah’s second marriage to Fatimih in 1849 and third one in 1862 sanctioned under Babi law?

In the Bayan, in the exceptional case of spouse infertility, a married man was given permission to take a second wife for the express intent of conceiving a child. This exception in itself tells us that the general rule is monogamy.

Baha’u’llah was not a Muslim when he became a party in these marital contracts but rather a disciple of the Babi dispensation and therefore bound by its rulings, as far as my understanding is aware.

Kind regards,

Vouthon

Hi Vouthon,

Firstly, I have always enjoyed your enlightened posts and the manner in which you explore religious truths with a spirit of fair-mindedness and justice. Something that I personally find endearing and a learning for me. Great to see you on this thread, dear brother

In regards to the Bab’s Persian Bayan, my understanding was that the laws contained within them were not intended to be constructive of a new era of God’s Laws, but rather intended to be destructive of God’s “previous” laws, namely Islamic Law. The Bayan was written to “gradually” usher in an “easier acceptance” of the Laws brought down by “Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest” (Baha’u’llah).

Such was the shortness of the Bab’s ministry that I am lead to believe that little if any of His Laws in the Bayan were officially implemented.

In all honesty, there are some Laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas which are not yet binding on all Baha’is, and these will be enacted and implemented at the wisdom of the Universal House of Justice. The law of Huquq’u’llah, for example was only recently universally applicable at the request of the Universal House of Justice.

As the Faith grows, structures can be put in place where these Laws can be implemented, and more efficiently dealt with on the local level. By this, I mean, education of the friends on the meaning and history behind the law and how one can apply the law to their daily lives.

As you may be aware, the majority of Baha’i laws are spiritually driven and as such are enacted through personal volition, rather than “imposed” by authoritarian figures or institutions.

Hope this helps

 

[Servant19]

Why is it that when Christians speak of Jesus’ miracles the Baha’i begin sowing seeds of doubt, if not outright rejecting them, based upon the fact that they do not comport with the natural world and scientific truth (which is why they are called “miracles” to begin with)?

At the same time, when the Baha’i are asked to explain their concept of the afterlife, for instance, we are told that these things are beyond human understanding, that they are “beyond words and description, where science cannot detect and religion also has limits. Hence, we are left with metaphorical hints which seem to take us beyond the physical world to a spiritual ocean, the closest to which we can come is the beach.”

This was my entire point. You hold the Christian position to the standard of providing scientific proof while exempting the Baha’i position from the same standard.

Hi Steve,

Apologies if it comes across this way. The understanding of Baha’is is summarised in Abdu’l-Baha’s statement in Paris Talks:

---

“There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance.
How can a man believe to be a fact that which science has proved to be impossible? If he believes in spite of his reason, it is rather ignorant superstition than faith. The true principles of all religions are in conformity with the teachings of science.”*** reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PT/pt-45.html

Please notice, He says the words “True religion”. Baha’is do not emphasise the miracles of Baha’u’llah at all because it does not conform with the business of religion. Religion is related with the spiritual truths of life. Science is left to discover the mechanics of events in this world.

Please also note that in this quote, Abdu’l-Baha reflects on if something goes “against” established science, it “does not conform with the principles of all religions”

This is not to say that the Manifestations of God are incapable of miracles, they most certainly are, however when these miracles form the bedrock of ones religion then they contradict true religion. That is my humble understanding, if it may be accepted for your consideration

God bless !

 

[daler]

Why is it that when Christians speak of Jesus’ miracles the Baha’i begin sowing seeds of doubt, if not outright rejecting them, based upon the fact that they do not comport with the natural world and scientific truth (which is why they are called “miracles” to begin with)?

At the same time, when the Baha’i are asked to explain their concept of the afterlife, for instance, we are told that these things are beyond human understanding, that they are “beyond words and description, where science cannot detect and religion also has limits. Hence, we are left with metaphorical hints which seem to take us beyond the physical world to a spiritual ocean, the closest to which we can come is the beach.”

This was my entire point. You hold the Christian position to the standard of providing scientific proof while exempting the Baha’i position from the same standard.

Steve,
. Thank you for clarifying your thoughts. It is very good, I think, to express ourselves in this way, for we are all climbing the ladder of understanding, from whatever rung we are on. The way for all of us is “up”.
. I do not discount that Jesus healed people, but what troubles me is the extent to which people “wanna see a sign - I wanna see a sign - gimme a miracle!!” etc, as though the words of Jesus Himself were unimportant when He said: “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh a sign”
. Why would He say this? That people want to turn the Prophets of God into magicians speaks to the depths of their lack of understanding of the purpose for which They have been sent forth.

. My suggestion is that science and religion are 100% compatible, and that Faith does not require one to set aside reason and scientific explanation. In fact, true Faith requires that we utilize our God-given faculty of reason. To “not” use our reason is to abandon Faith in God, in my opinion.

. What I am plainly stating is that my “reasoning mind” cannot follow along mindlessly in cadence to the interpretations of the stories “as told” in the case of the loaves and fishes when the story “starts out” with Jesus saying to His disciples: “Share”

. Then what happens, is the recorders of the tradition automatically turn it into a physical “miracle”, which would accomplish absolutely “nothing”, inasmuch as none of us, or the disciples, was able to repeat it, in light of John 14:12
. “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do."

. Tell me who has successfully repeated the loaves and fishes story? ______________

. My rational mind says that the “true miracle” was the blossoming of the human spiritual potential - that of recognizing others, Jews and Gentiles, as worthy to share your food with, sit down and get to know each other, and

. " By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. "

 

[tonyfish58]

Amen This is certainly a shared practice and theological understanding between our two religions. Indeed Evangelical Protestants do not recognize intercession of saints, so on that point (despite our differences in other key areas) Catholicism is closer to the Baha’i Faith than to some other denominations within Christianity.

Many Protestant churches strongly reject all saintly intercession. I would hope that my fellow Catholics could applaud this aspect of Baha’i belief.

For their benefit, I would like to quote this about a question asked to Abdu’l-Baha:

Not only does this concourse exist but it is my understanding (and please correct me if wrong) that it is also a source for progress in the world, an inspiration in the arts and advancements in the sciences of this world too. It includes all the Manifestations and prophets of past dispensations:

It is also made evident by this passage from Baha’u’llah about Jesus:

The advancements of Christian civilisation are attributed to the motive power of Jesus’ spirit.

Bless you Nick. I can certainly say the same for yourself and the other Baha’is on here. You have conducted yourself in an exemplary manner (in the face of many challenges during this thread that could have led one to react otherwise).

My purpose is less to “debate” and more to “discuss”. Given that my peers are making valid attempts to emphasise where Catholicism and the Baha’i Faith diverge, I would like to offer the other side of the coin: **Where and on what issues do we agree? **. In the process, we will likely find disagreements as well. Hopefully we can politely respect those differences rather than make them a cause for offense or religious “one-upmanship”

Vouthon - That is the Love of God working for both of us - Thank You, that is very Christian

Regards Tony

 

[daler]

I will add, that we should be mindful of something when dialoguing with believers of other faiths.

We should not be surprised to find the Holy Spirit already at work among them. We should not be surprised, likewise, if our understanding of our faith is purified by the noble qualities and gifts present in followers of other religions:

The above is from a Vatican document from 1991 on the true spirit of interreligious dialogue:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_19051991_dialogue-and-proclamatio_en.html

I think that its guiding principles to Catholics are very similar in spirit to Baha’i teachings on the same topic ie

---

Vouthon,
. I was very moved by your post # 256. Whatever sail our little boats of understanding have, it is the wind of the Holy Spirit that blows upon them. We watch each other zip along from time to time, blown by the same breezes.

. “The answer, my friend, is blown in the wind. The answer is blown in the wind…”
Bob Dylan …

For 2 1/2 minutes of pure beauty and joy, may I request a brief song break of Bob on You Tube:

youtube.com/watch?v=vWwgrjjIMXA

.

.

 

[daler]

Dear Nick

On a different topic…

Don’t you think that the Baha’i belief in the “concourse on high” and the Catholic “communion of saints”, are both very similar? Baha’is seem to believe in the power and possibility of intercessory prayer, which naturally has a venerable history in Western Christianity.

I am also struck by Baha’u’llah’s utilization of Eucharistic imagery in his tablet to Pope Pius IX (The Lawh-i-Pap):

Baha’u’llah uses its imagery as a metaphor for, I think, religious unity among different faiths.

Communion imagery of the cup of Christ’s “blood” is I think an apt one to use given its explicit relationship to unity (ie of the Body of Christ: the Church and her members).

Vouthon,
. Dear brother,
. Again I am moved by your sentiments and expression of the profound parallels found in what only “appear” to be different Faiths:

. " This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures." . . Baha’u’llah

 

[tonyfish58]

areas of agreement are well enough.

with whom can a person NOT find something to agree?

even the atheist professes attributes with which a catholic can agree.

so, after we identify our areas of agreement, we are finished in our discussion?

are there degrees of understanding of the truth?

if there are, is a person not remiss to advocate for the greatest understanding of the truth?

is it not the disagreements that divide far more than the agreements unite?

is not unity only produced by eliminating the disagreements?

Eddie these questions are well worth exploring

Lets have a go for the sake of unity and the love of God

Your Observation and Question “Areas of agreement are well enough with whom can a person NOT find something to agree?”

Then lets explore agreement, Unity is Love and Hope. Disagreement leads to what we see in the world today. This does not mean you have to compromise Your Faith. IMHO

Your observation and Question “Even the atheist professes attributes with which a catholic can agree. so, after we identify our areas of agreement, we are finished in our discussion”?

Discussion re what we beleive is only one aspect of Faith, after talking, could we not put the wisdom into practice. There is a whole world needing God more than ever!

Your Question "Are there degrees of understanding of the truth?

Every person on this planet is at their stage of development in their Love of God and the Prophets; there is a tradition that states, “The Good Deeds of the Righteous are the Sins of the Near Ones”. To me this is saying the closer you move towards the Love of God, the more you realise that deeds you thought were acceptable in the past, may in fact have fallen way short of the required virtue!

Your Question “If there are, is a person not remiss to advocate for the greatest understanding of the truth”?

That is Ones Obligation/Duty/Service towards God for the Love of their Faith, is this not why we are here discussing the Love of God now!

Your Question "Is it not the disagreements that divide far more than the agreements unite?

IMHO - Only if one chooses that path!

Your Question "Is not unity only produced by eliminating the disagreements?

Agreeing to disagree is still Unity - We are all connected to the Love of God. That one connection should be enough, should it not. Are we not to turn the other cheek and to do unto others as we would have them do unto us!

May God bless us all with the wisdom to obtain this Unity.

Regards Tony

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

I have a question relating to Baha’u’llah’s marriages: When Baha’u’llah married his second and third wives was he not a Babi and therefore under the marriage laws of the Bab?

He married his second wife, Fatimih in 1849 and he married his third wife, Gawhar, in 1862. The Bab declared himself a Manifestation of God in 1844.

Did the Bab not promote monogamy and limit a man to one wife except in a case of infertility, in which they could have a second wife?

In the Islamic tradition, there are a number of areas in which the Prophet is not subject to his own laws. One of these is the limitation of a maximum of four wives (subject to treating them equally, which some have argued is an impossible condition). As you will be aware, most of Muhammad’s later wives were widows, and had no children by him. Another exemption of the Prophet is the requirement of a dowry.

The prophetic exception is not an explicit legal principle in the Bahai and Babi faiths, so far as I know, but it has some background relevance:

1. it makes the point that the giver of the laws is lord of the laws: “That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” Luke 6:5
2. it meant that what Baha’u’llah did in this area would not be taken as a model of behaviour, at least by Bahais from an Islamic background.

Baha’u’llah’s marriage to Fatimih can be understood in terms of a family obligation. She was Baha’u’llah’s cousin, eleven years his junior. Baha’u’llah’s father had arranged her marriage, when she must have been very young, to an old man in his circle. She was left a widow when she was 16, and Baha’u’llah’s father had in the meantime died. Baha’u’llah married her some time later, in 1849.

The Persian and Arabic Bayans were begun before April 9, 1848, when the Bab was moved from Mah Ku prison to Chehriq prison, but since the Persian Bayan was never completed, and since the Bab was in prison, it seems unlikely that the Babis of 1849 knew that it existed, let alone what its contents were. A separate question is whether the laws of the Bayan were intended by the Bab to come into force immediately. It could be that the entire corpus of the Bab’s laws was in animated suspension pending the approval of He Whom God will make manifest. The Bab’s laws are in my opinion primarily a vehicle for making theological points, just as the history of the Old Testament is primarily theology.

It is often said that Baha’u’llah married Gawhar in the late Baghdad period, although there is some counter-evidence. She had arrived in Baghdad with her brother, but since we do not know her birth date, I do not know whether she was a baby, child, youth or adult. We do know they came from Kashan, and that her brother had had to leave because he was the target of persecution there (and also because he wanted to be near Baha’u’llah).

When Baha’u’llah was summoned to Istanbul (1863), she did not accompany him. She and her brother remained in Baghdad and were among about 70 Babi-Bahais sent to Mosul in 1870. Her remaining in Baghdad implies either that she was not considered part of Baha’u’llah’s immediate household at that time, or that she was not fit for the journey to Istanbul, for example because she was pregnant. She and her brother remained in Mosul for some years. She rejoined Baha’u’llah when he was in Akka (from August 1868), and it would appear she had her daughter with her when she arrived.

There may be more information in Baharieh Ma’ani’s “Leaves of the Twin Divine Trees” (Oxford: George Ronald, reprinted 2009), which I do not have.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

I have been looking for that counter-evidence regarding the date of Baha’u’llah’s third marriage, to Gawhar. It is a letter by Abdu’l-Baha, quoted in the Diary of Habíb Mu’ayyad and translated by Ahang Rabbani, on page 443 it reads

The multiple marriages of Bahá’u’lláh occurred prior to the revelation of the Kitáb-i Aqdas. At the time of Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon, multiplicity of wives was permitted. Therefore, in consideration of the past Dispensation and in view of many other factors, Bahá’u’lláh, prior to the revelation of the Kitáb-i Aqdas, acquired two wives. Jacob had four, Abraham had several and David had ninety-nine wives. Bahá’u’lláh, however, in accordance with the laws of the previous Dispensation, acquired two wives and, when one passed away, another marriage occurred. However, after the revelation of the Kitáb-i Aqdas, this matter was concluded, and no other marriages took place. And the multiplicity of His marriages was in accord with certain wisdom. But everyone must now turn to the Kitáb-i Aqdas and do as bidden therein.

The problem is, Khadijeh Bagum died on 15 September 1882, after the revelation of the Kitab-e Aqdas.

If indeed the marriage took place in Palestine after the death of Khadijeh Bagum, and if Gawhar had her daughter with her when she arrived in Palestine, (two ifs), then it would appear that she had a child and no husband, for which there are three explanations (1) she was a widow, as David Hofman says (see below), (2) she slipped or (3) she was raped. I think the last of these is most likely, as the group who were sent to Mosul were subject to sever abuse, and they had no protectors there.

Hofman’s claim is published in Baha’u’llah, The Prince of Peace - A Portrait, p. 45:

“Later in Baghdad, the widow of a martyr fled to Him for protection, which He afforded her in the only way possible, by taking her as His third wife.”

However he gives no source and I do not consider him reliable in himself. He did have access to reliable sources, but since he does not say when he is using one of these, it’s shaky ground.

Hofman also says that Baha’u’llah’s second wife, Fatimah, was married to a younger brother of Baha’u’llah who had died. This does not contradict what I had said previously, as I recall that there were some years between Fatimah being widowed for the first time and her marriage to Baha’u’llah. It could be that the first thing the family did for her was to marry her to a younger brother in the family, and when he too died, she was married to Baha’u’llah. But again, Hofman does not say where he got this information; he might simply be confused

 

[rinnie]

Right. Jesus was carrying out the Will of God, not His own will. The Manifestations aren’t ‘winging’ it. They reveal the Will of God for the age in which they appear. Therefore, if any changes are made from what was previously revealed, that change is sanctioned by and originates from God.

But Nick the problem we have the word of God telling us that this is not true. It said not to go against any teaching revealed to you either by Christ or his Church.

God does not teach 2 truths. He addressed what you are saying and said the Church shall always win.

 

[eddie_too]

doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is advice given under the abrahamic covenant.

Jesus gave us a new commandment, that we love one another as He has loved us.

there are so many teachings of Jesus that are either ignored, changed or contradicted in bahaism that i cannot see how bahaism can claim to be based on the teachings of Jesus.

one of the most prominent examples of the departure of bahaism from the teachings of Jesus is the fact that Jesus said He would raise His body from the grave; and, the bahai say Jesus either did not know what He was talking about, or, misspoke to the confusion of His followers, or was lying.

if there is a fourth, fifth, sixth explanation, i am unaware of them.

but, for bahaullah to claim to be the one promised by Jesus while simultaneously rejecting much of what Jesus taught is not logical or reasonable.

 

[Nick44]

But Nick the problem we have the word of God telling us that this is not true. It said not to go against any teaching revealed to you either by Christ or his Church.

God does not teach 2 truths. He addressed what you are saying and said the Church shall always win.

eddie, we believe that religious truth is relative and is progressively revealed by God, through His Manifestations, as our capacity to understand increases. Similar to the way your parents, in their love and concern for you, gave you more knowledge, responsibilities and different sets of rules as you grew. Baha’u’llah explains in His ‘Book of Certitude’, pg 27:

“Beside this passage, there is yet another verse in the Gospel wherein He saith: “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My words shall not pass away.” 22 Thus it is that the adherents of Jesus maintained that the law of the Gospel shall never be annulled, and that whensoever the promised Beauty is made manifest and all the signs are revealed, He must needs re-affirm and establish the law proclaimed in the Gospel, so that there may remain in the world no faith but His faith. This is their fundamental belief. And their conviction is such that were a person to be made manifest with all the promised signs and to promulgate that which is contrary to the letter of the law of the Gospel, 28 they must assuredly renounce him, refuse to submit to his law, declare him an infidel, and laugh him to scorn. This is proved by that which came to pass when the sun of the Muḥammadan Revelation was revealed. Had they sought with a humble mind from the Manifestations of God in every Dispensation the true meaning of these words revealed in the sacred books—words the misapprehension of which hath caused men to be deprived of the recognition of the Sadratu’l-Muntahá, the ultimate Purpose—they surely would have been guided to the light of the Sun of Truth, and would have discovered the mysteries of divine knowledge and wisdom.”

 

[SteveVH]

Right. Jesus was carrying out the Will of God, not His own will. The Manifestations aren’t ‘winging’ it. They reveal the Will of God for the age in which they appear. Therefore, if any changes are made from what was previously revealed, that change is sanctioned by and originates from God.

But where is the discernment, Nick? Many people make many claims. How do we discern whether or not they are speaking the truth? God created us with a rational mind in order that we might know the truth. When a person comes along and claims that he is a “Manifestation of God” and then proceeds to act in a way counter to God’s eternal laws, claiming that he has the right to change those laws, it is reasonable to conclude that he is not what he claims to be. And when one unabashedly claims to be the second coming of Christ (I can think of no bolder claim) then it is reasonable for us to compare him to Christ. Baha’u’llah does not qualify in the least, if for no other reason than he is dead in the ground. We know that Christ will never die again, and that includes his body. It is a dead give away, no pun intended.

 

[SteveVH]

Amen This is certainly a shared practice and theological understanding between our two religions. Indeed Evangelical Protestants do not recognize intercession of saints, so on that point (despite our differences in other key areas) Catholicism is closer to the Baha’i Faith than to some other denominations within Christianity.

I find that it is closer to Mormonism than anything else. Just off the top of my head:

• Started by a self proclaimed, polygamous “prophet”.
• Theology of progression.
• Belief that matter is eternal and self existing.
• Continuing revelation
• Denial of the Trinity

 

[Vouthon]

• Started by a self proclaimed, polygamous “prophet”.
• Theology of progression.
• Belief that matter is eternal and self existing.
• Continuing revelation
• Denial of the Trinity

I think that the basis of any comparison between Mormonism and the Baha’i Faith would be that they are both categorized under the rubric of “New Religious Movements” arising in the 19th century. A key difference in this aspect, however, would be that while both emerged as splinter sects from a world religion (Baha’i from Shi’ah Islam and Mormonism from Protestant Christianity) the latter did not become a full “religion” in its own right but is usually regarded as heterodox Christian off-shoot sect whereas the Baha’i Faith became a religion fully independent from Islam in every respect.

Many religions and sects have been founded by people who have claimed prophetic insight or a life-transforming revelatory experience, so I’m not sure if that is a strong point of unique similarity between the two. Polygamy, I suppose, since Joseph Smith and Baha’u’llah both had more than one wife although the circumstances under which they married differed significantly.

The belief in a progressive and continuing revelation, that is certainly a close affinity between the two. There is a difference in time-scale here nonetheless, with Baha’is not expecting another major “revelation” for around a thousand years at least, whereas Mormons have a “living prophet” in the office of Church President who receives and makes new revelations all of the time.

Both religions do deny the orthodox Christian understanding of the Most Blessed Trinity. Nevertheless, Baha’is are strict monotheists whilst Mormons are essentially polytheists. That is a major difference and it puts the Baha’i Faith on a much closer footing to us than the Mormons.

The Baha’i interpretation of the dogma of the Most Blessed Trinity differs from the Catholic understanding. In Baha’i parlance it can quite simply be expressed by the following aphorism:

God is the sun, the Holy Spirit is the sun rays, the Manifestation is the mirror shining the sun onto man.

To say that the Holy Spirit can be compared to “sun rays” would imply to me that He does not have personhood, identity or distinct consciousness, in other words that the Holy Spirit has no personality in His own right. Catholics understand the Holy Ghost as a divine person of the Godhead who can be “blasphemed”. You cannot blaspheme something which does not in itself have being and persona.

For Baha’is to say, likewise, that Jesus reflects God perfectly like a mirror or water reflecting the image of the sun, this is crucially different from the dogma of the Incarnation which posits that the Divine Person of the Son of God assumed a human nature and became fully God and fully Man. Christians do not believe that Jesus simply reflected perfectly the attributes of God, like the sun analogy presented, we believe that he was not simply a physical reflection or copy of the transcendent, unknowable God but that He actually possessed and was in His Divine Nature the Essence and very being of God . Christians believe that Jesus is therefore God in the flesh, so we cannot say that there is a distinction between Jesus and God. In the Baha’i belief Jesus “reflects” God and so to all intents and purposes is God given that, during his Dispensation, his person was the only means through which people could know something about God, His Will and have any conception of His attributes or Glory. However he would still be considered a distinct entity from the Essence of God which is not acceptable for us.

The Catholic Church nevertheless teaches that Jews, Muslims and every other class of monotheists such as adherents of the Baha’i faith “adore with us the one true God”. It can argue this because our understanding of God the Father is very close. Christians, Muslims, Jews and Baha’is all worship the same God in the person of the Father.

Since in the Catholic conception of the Trinity each of the Three Persons is wholly and fully God (not a “part” of God which is the heresy of swendenborgianism) then Muslims, Jews and Baha’is do worship the “one true God” validly even though they differ from us in their understanding of the nature of God in a number of significant ways and are (from an orthodox Catholic perspective) unaware that He is One God in Three Persons.

 

[SteveVH]

I think that the basis of any comparison between Mormonism and the Baha’i Faith would be that they are both categorized under the rubric of “New Religious Movements” arising in the 19th century. A key difference in this aspect, however, would be that while both emerged as splinter sects from a world religion (Baha’i from Shi’ah Islam and Mormonism from Protestant Christianity) the latter did not become a full “religion” in its own right but is usually regarded as heterodox Christian off-shoot sect whereas the Baha’i Faith became a religion fully independent from Islam in every respect.

Many religions and sects have been founded by people who have claimed prophetic insight or a life-transforming revelatory experience, so I’m not sure if that is a strong point of unique similarity between the two. Polygamy, I suppose, since Joseph Smith and Baha’u’llah both had more than one wife although the circumstances under which they married differed significantly.

The belief in a progressive and continuing revelation, that is certainly a close affinity between the two. There is a difference in time-scale here nonetheless, with Baha’is not expecting another major “revelation” for around a thousand years at least, whereas Mormons have a “living prophet” in the office of Church President who receives and makes new revelations all of the time.

Both religions do deny the orthodox Christian understanding of the Most Blessed Trinity. Nevertheless, Baha’is are strict monotheists whilst Mormons are essentially polytheists. That is a major difference and it puts the Baha’i Faith on a much closer footing to us than the Mormons.

The Baha’i interpretation of the dogma of the Most Blessed Trinity differs from the Catholic understanding. In Baha’i parlance it can quite simply be expressed by the following aphorism:

God is the sun, the Holy Spirit is the suns rays, the Manifestation is the mirror shining the sun onto man.

To say that the Holy Spirit can be compared to “sun rays” would imply to me that He does not have personhood, identity or distinct consciousness, in other words that the Holy Spirit has no personality in his own right. Catholics understand the Holy Ghost as a divine person of the Godhead who can be “blasphemed”. You cannot blaspheme something which does not in itself have being and persona.

For Baha’is to say, likewise, that Jesus reflects God perfectly like a mirror or water reflecting the image of the sun, this is crucially different from the dogma of the Incarnation which posits that the Divine Person of the Son of God assumed a human nature and became fully God and fully Man. Christians do not believe that Jesus simply reflected perfectly the attributes of God, like the sun analogy presented, we believe that he was not simply a physical reflection or copy of the transcendent, unknowable God but that He actually possessed and was in His Divine Nature the Essence and very being of God . Christians believe that Jesus is therefore God in the flesh, so we cannot say that there is a distinction between Jesus and God. In the Baha’i belief Jesus “reflects” God and so to all intents and purposes is God given that, during his Dispensation, his person was the only means through which people could know something about God, His Will and have any conception of His attributes or Glory. However he would still be considered a distinct entity from the Essence of God which is not acceptable for us.

The Catholic Church nevertheless teaches that Jews, Muslims and every other class of monotheists such as adherents of the Baha’i faith “adore with us the one true God”. It can argue this because our understanding of God the Father is very close. Christians, Muslims, Jews and Baha’is all worship the same God in the person of the Father.

Since in the Catholic conception of the Trinity each of the Three Persons is wholly and fully God (not a “part” of God which is the heresy of swendenborgianism) then Muslims, Jews and Baha’is do worship the “one true God” validly even though they differ from us in their understanding of the nature of God in a number of significant ways.

I think what you have said is accurate.

 

[eddie_too]

an important and fundamental teaching that differs between christianity and bahai, among many differing teachings like the trinity and the incarnation, is that the bahai teach that heaven is a disembodied human spirit eternally seeking but never arriving while the christian concept of heaven is a glorified human body and soul resting eternally in the peace and love of Perfect Being.

another important difference is that the bahai believe that finite human beings can adequately atone for their sins against their Creator, while christians believe that the debt to the Creator caused by the sins of the individual can only be atoned for through an infinite sacrifice.

so, yes, the bahai reject Christ’s Divine Personhood and the Trinity of the Divine Nature, but there are many other christian teachings that they reject and that absent those teachings make life incomprehensible and humans vessels of despair.

 

[eddie_too]

if bahuallah is eternally seeking, how can he provide us with answers since he will never arrive at the complete truth? he must progress and to progress one must be incomplete.

 

[agnosticscience]

if bahuallah is eternally seeking, how can he provide us with answers since he will never arrive at the complete truth? he must progress and to progress one must be incomplete.

I think Bahais consider Bahaullahs divine nature to be perfect as God is perfect.

 

[Vouthon]

Belief that matter is eternal and self existing

That is an interesting theological issue to raise and I wonder if one of the Baha’is could elucidate on it for us.

In “Some Answered Questions” (a work considered by Baha’is to be inspired and authorized scripture) Abdu’l-Baha states:

“…In this way cycles begin, end and are renewed, until a universal cycle is completed in the world, when important events and great occurrences will take place which entirely efface every trace and every record of the past; then a new universal cycle begins in the world, for this universe has no beginning…”

***- 'Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, pp. 160-161; also in Foundations of World Unity, p. 54) ***

J. E. Esslemont, a Hand of the Cause, once stated: “…Baha’u’llah teaches that the universe is without beginning in time. It is a perpetual emanation from the Great First Cause…” (Baha’u’llah and the New Era p. 204).

I did wonder when I first read this whether it might be an expression of the idea that God, existing beyond time in an eternal “Now”, is in that sense always in the process of creating the universe and all things. Without time to constrain Him, there never was a “moment” when He wasn’t creating. Meister Eckhart, the 14th century Catholic mystical theologian, described God as creating without ceasing beyond time.

Shunryu Suzuki, the famous 20th century Zen Buddhist master, wrote a praiseworthy commentary on this aspect of Eckhartian thought which might bear reading:

“…[According to Meister Eckhart] God is not in time mathematically enumerable. His creativity is not historical, not accidental, not at all measurable. It goes on continuously without cessation with no beginning, with no end. It is not an event of yesterday or today or tomorrow, it comes out of timelessness, of nothingness, of Absolute Void. God’s work is always done in an absolute present, in a timeless “now which is time and place in itself.” God’s work is sheer love, utterly free from all forms of chronology and teleology. The idea [then is that of] God creating the world out of nothing, in an absolute present, and therefore altogether beyond the control of a serial time conception…”

***- Shunryu Suzuki (1904-1971), Meister Eckhart and Buddhism ***

Creation is not therefore a single, time-bound historical event (in the sense of this example: One day there was “no universe” and then God decided in the next moment, "oh, lets create the world!"). God is creating the entire universe, and all things now, in this very moment. “My Father has never ceased working, and I too must be at work” (John 5:7). This continuous divine activity is His eternal creativity or role as “Creator”. It is symbolized in Genesis as an event that took place in primordial times but in reality it is a continuous activity beyond time. As Meister Eckhart said in one of his sermons, “God did not create the world 6,000 years ago, but creates it in this very moment”, in this ‘indivisible now’.

God as we Catholics know him, is one eternal, unceasing, divine act:

“…When God says that He is being…it can only mean this: that he is the pure act of existing…Pure act: therefore excluding all imperfection in the order of existing. Therefore excluding all change, all becoming, all beginning or end…”

If Baha’is do not mean this, then any posited eternity for matter would be very much at odds with Christian orthodoxy. It would appear too lead to monism or at the very least the concept that the Universe is somehow equivalent to God.

Aristotle believed this ie that the universe was eternal because an unmoved mover always needs something to move. According to the Greek philosopher, then, matter has always existed by dependency upon the eternal Unmoved Mover. Aristotle’s matter is there co-eternal with God and this belief is anathema to Catholics.

Catholicism believes in creation ex nihilo (from nothing).

I’m interested to hear the Baha’i view concerning this.