Believing in the True Jesus vs Baha'u'llah

[SteveVH]

Muhammad Himself was the epitamy of justice and mercy, yet the Qur’an contains several no-nonsense punishments:

Do you consider conversion by the sword to be just and merciful?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Your personal attacks (“You are a liar”) are going to get you banned if you persist, which would be a shame as you have much to learn about the Christian faith.

I don’t particularly care if I get banned, friend. Lots of decent folks have been banned by CAF. Should I join their number, oh well.

The fact is that PR has proven your paradigm “it’s fine as long as no one gets hurt” to be in error.

That wasn’t ever really my paradigm, just the one PR made up. I said I can tolerate a wide range of beliefs as long as they are not hurting anyone. How that morphs into condoning adultery is beyond me.

So lets talk about “beliefs”. Do you think that if one is following a false set of doctrines or beliefs that it doesn’t hurt anyone?

How on Earth are you people coming up with this? I never said there weren’t harmful beliefs out there. In fact, I was quite clear that there are harmful beliefs out there.

Islam claims that Jesus was never crucified or resurrected.

Christianity claims that he was crucified and rose bodily from the dead.

Islam claims that Jesus was just a prophet.

Christian claim that Jesus is God, just as fully as the Father is God.

In the face of these glaring contradictions how can you accept both as true? And if one is false, do you believe that it hurts no one to believe in this false doctrine?

Thanks.

Steve

This is part of why Baha’u’llah came, so we could know the full truth as errors crept into previous revelations. As for harmful, I am not sure. I know good and decent Muslims who believe what you wrote and I know many good and decent Christians who believe what you wrote. Does it hurt them to believe in these false doctrines? To the extent that it might retard their progress in the afterlife, sure, I think it could be harmful. That is why God sent us Baha’u’llah. Now, back to defending your friend here and threatening me with banning.

 

[PRmerger]

Your personal attacks (“You are a liar”) are going to get you banned if you persist, which would be a shame as you have much to learn about the Christian faith.

Indeed. Being unable to dialogue in charity is a moral defect.

The fact is that PR has proven your paradigm “it’s fine as long as no one gets hurt” to be in error.

Egg-zactly.

We all know that even if no one gets hurt, adultery is gravely immoral because it contravenes the moral law.

Even if no one gets hurt.

 

[Nick44]

Do you consider conversion by the sword to be just and merciful?

The Qur’an says that “there must be no compulsion in religion”. Islamic warfare was almost always defensive in nature. Nevertheless, much blood has been spilled by some fanatical followers, and these unfortunate events are not unique to Islam. In the past, Christianity has also been guilty of the “be baptized or be slain” mentality.

In this new age of Baha’u’llah, holy war of any sort has been forbidden; the steel sword has been replaced for the individual with the sword of the tongue. However, collective security will remain to insure the peace and tranquility of the planet.

"On the societal level, the principle of collective security enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh and elaborated by Shoghi Effendi does not presuppose the abolition of the use of force, but prescribes “a system in which Force is made the servant of Justice”, and which provides for the existence of an international peace-keeping force that “will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth”. Bahá’u’lláh expresses the hope that “weapons of war throughout the world may be converted into instruments of reconstruction and that strife and conflict may be removed from the midst of men”.

In another Tablet Bahá’u’lláh stresses the importance of fellowship with the followers of all religions; He also states that “the law of holy war hath been blotted out from the Book”.

 

[SteveVH]

That wasn’t ever really my paradigm, just the one PR made up. I said I can tolerate a wide range of beliefs as long as they are not hurting anyone.

Well, then, PR’s version of your paradigm is valid, is it not? And if one believes that a discrete one-night stand is okay because it “doesn’t hurt anyone” as long as no one finds out then is this a belief you can tolerate? There are religions that promote polygamy, for instance. The believe that his is God’s will and all parties to this are presumed to be willing participants so no one is getting hurt. Can you tolerate this belief?

How on Earth are you people coming up with this? I never said there weren’t harmful beliefs out there. In fact, I was quite clear that there are harmful beliefs out there.

Fair enough, but my statement was in reference to just a few of the differences in beliefs between Muslims and Christians which the Baha’i profess to both be true, which you address below.

This is part of why Baha’u’llah came, so we could know the full truth as errors crept into previous revelations. As for harmful, I am not sure. I know good and decent Muslims who believe what you wrote and I know many good and decent Christians who believe what you wrote. Does it hurt them to believe in these false doctrines? To the extent that it might retard their progress in the afterlife, sure, I think it could be harmful. That is why God sent us Baha’u’llah.

And which is in error, CITW? And what has Baha’u’llah done to remedy the situation?

Now, back to defending your friend here and threatening me with banning.

I have no authority to ban you, nor does PR, therefore what we have said is not a threat. We would like to see you stick around for awhile and for that reason are reminding you that you are breaking forum rules with personal attacks. Persisting in breaking forum rules usually leads to one being banned. That is all. We don’t want that to happen to you.

Peace.

Steve

 

[peace_at_last]

That dear friend is what happens when one looks with a closed mind, if a person already has an answer before they Judge, then they are bias in Judgement. The answer you got, I can tell you 100%, is not the clear answer.

I in no way wish you to change you, so God Bless you and may God give you all the Love that is His.

Thus the passage in context -

It is incumbent upon every man, in this Day, to hold fast unto whatsoever will promote the interests, and exalt the station, of all nations and just governments. Through each and every one of the verses which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed, the doors of love and unity have been unlocked and flung open to the face of men. We have erewhile declared—and Our Word is the truth—: “Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.” Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these words, been nullified and abolished. From the heaven of God’s Will, and for the purpose of ennobling the world of being and of elevating the minds and souls of men, hath been sent down that which is the most effective instrument for the education of the whole human race. The highest essence and most perfect expression of whatsoever the peoples of old have either said or written hath, through this most potent Revelation, been sent down from the heaven of the Will of the All-Possessing, the Ever-Abiding God. Of old it hath been revealed: “Love of one’s country is an element of the Faith of God.” The Tongue of Grandeur hath, however, in the day of His manifestation proclaimed: “It is not his to boast who loveth his country, but it is his who loveth the world.” Through the power released by these exalted words He hath lent a fresh impulse, and set a new direction, to the birds of men’s hearts, and hath 96 obliterated every trace of restriction and limitation from God’s holy Book. reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-43.html

God bless all and Regards Tony

I have marked all the sections in Baha’u’llah’s words where he is referring to “all humanity” not just “followers of all religions” in the aforementioned quote. You have taken a single instance where he has emphasized “all religions” and are claiming that is the only group he is referring to about not shunning one another.

I don’t intend to change your mind too, but unlike you I don’t go around telling those that I converse with that they have bias and are judging with a closed mind.

 

[PRmerger]

I have no authority to ban you, nor does PR, therefore what we have said is not a threat. We would like to see you stick around for awhile and for that reason are reminding you that you are breaking forum rules with personal attacks. Persisting in breaking forum rules usually leads to one being banned. That is all. We don’t want that to happen to you.

Peace.

Steve

Indeed. I typically feel sadness when I see a person banned for lack of ability to converse in a reasonable manner.

It is always good for these posters to be in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Well, then, PR’s version of your paradigm is valid, is it not? And if one believes that a discrete one-night stand is okay because it “doesn’t hurt anyone” as long as no one finds out then is this a belief you can tolerate?

Like I said, anyone who thinks adultery harms no one just because they don’t get caught has a moral compass that isn’t pointing north. PR made this up to try and bait me. I refuse to be baited anymore.

There are religions that promote polygamy, for instance. The believe that his is God’s will and all parties to this are presumed to be willing participants so no one is getting hurt. Can you tolerate this belief?

Yes. This is not adultery. PR never said a single thing about polygamous marriages, which have been condoned at certain times by God. It would not be acceptable behavior for a Baha’i but for a Muslim, okay.

And which is in error, CITW? And what has Baha’u’llah done to remedy the situation?

Both are in error. Baha’u’llah has taught the truth. Surely you’ve figured out by now that we believe our Prophet-Founder taught us the truth. Surely we don’t have to go over this yet again.

 

[peace_at_last]

Covenant-breakers are extremely rare and few in number, but the instructions to the Baha’is as to how they are to be treated is crystal clear:

“Bahá’u’lláh and the Master (Abdu’l-Baha) in many places and very emphatically have told us to shun entirely all Covenant-breakers as they are afflicted with what we might try and define as a contagious spiritual disease; they have also told us, however, to pray for them. These souls are not lost forever… It follows therefore that God will forgive any soul if he repents. Most of them don’t want to repent, unfortunately. …Also, it has nothing to do with unity in the Cause; if a man cuts a cancer out of his body to preserve his health and very life, no one would suggest that for the sake of “unity” it should be reintroduced into the otherwise healthy organism! On the contrary, what was once a part of him has so radically changed as to have become a poison.”
(From a letter dated 30 November 1944 written on behalf of the Guardian (Shoghi Effendi) to an individual believer)

As I said, it is a very rare occurrence and in no way applies to those who voluntarily leave the Faith or simply don’t believe in it:

“People who have withdrawn from the Cause because they no longer feel that they can support its Teachings and Institutions sincerely, are not Covenant-breakers—they are non-Bahá’ís and should just be treated as such. Only those who ally themselves actively with known enemies of the Faith who are Covenant-breakers, and who attack the Faith in the same spirit as these people, can be considered, themselves, to be Covenant-breakers…”
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian, March 30, 1957)

Covenant breakers being small in number makes no difference. They are still shunned while Baha’u’llah had claimed he has nullified everything WHATSOEVER that is a cause for shunning. Shunning covenant-breakers still contradicts Baha’u’llah’s words. Furthermore, bringing up the matter of covenant-breakers was a scapegoat used by a Baha’i member to divert attention from the original quote which encompasses a very large group of people that are to be shunned according to Baha’u’llah’s orders:

“Shun any man in whom you perceive enmity for this Servant, though he may appear in the garb of piety of the former and later people, or may arise to the worship of the two worlds.” Baha’i World Faith—Selected Writings of Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha (Abdu’l-Baha’s Section Only), p. 431.

 

[SteveVH]

The Qur’an says that “there must be no compulsion in religion”.

It also says this:

*The Qur’an:
Qur’an (8:39) - “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” Translation from the Noble Quran

Qur’an (9:29) - “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Qur’an (9:5) “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them…” *

 

[Nick44]

We all know that even if no one gets hurt, adultery is gravely immoral because it contravenes the moral law…

Baha’is and Christians would agree on that point, and were a Baha’i to be flagrantly committing adultery, they would be subject to administrative sanctions.

The amount of harm done in the world by the excessive use of alcohol and the taking of illicit drugs is incalculable. Baha’is are forbidden alcohol and drugs unless medically prescribed. We don’t, however, cast aspersions on those who choose to drink; don’t interfere with their personal choices, and don’t picket in front of liquor stores (for example). On matters of personal belief, we believe that it is always just that, personal.

You ask if we would intervene if someone is harming themselves or others by their actions; the answer is yes, but it depends on if that intervention would be appropriate. We’ve never claimed authority to be the morality police force.

 

[peace_at_last]

Baha’u’llah also allows for life imprisonment as an option, too, The law you referenced is not yet in effect, and how and when it will be applied will be determined by the Universal House of Justice, who will decide these matters with justice, and with all possible mitigating factors considered.

God is not a mean ogre, but He does reveal laws suitable to the times and the peoples concerned. Muhammad Himself was the epitamy of justice and mercy, yet the Qur’an contains several no-nonsense punishments:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
Qur’an 5:33

Life imprisonment being used as an alternate does not change the facts. The law not being in effect changes nothing either. Whether you like it or not, Baha’is are waiting for a period in the future when the law will be put into effect and some people will be burned alive for arson and others imprisoned for life.

Harsh punishments in Islam cannot be used to justify harsh punishments in Baha’ism becasue Baha’u’llah claims he has removed brutal dispositions and has replaced them with spiritual ones:
“The unbelievers and the faithless have set their minds on four things: first, the shedding of blood; second, the burning of books; third, the shunning of the followers of other religions; fourth, the extermination of other communities and groups. Now however, through the strengthening grace and potency of the Word of God these four barriers have been demolished, these clear injunctions have been obliterated from the Tablet and brutal dispositions have been transmuted into spiritual attributes.” Tablets of Baha’u’llah Revealed After the Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 91

 

[SteveVH]

Yes. This is not adultery. PR never said a single thing about polygamous marriages, which have been condoned at certain times by God. It would not be acceptable behavior for a Baha’i but for a Muslim, okay.

That is my question, not PR’s. And Jesus, whom you hold as a prophet, would disagree with you. He tells us that in marriage the two become one flesh, which would make it impossible for marriage to be between more than two. Having relations with anyone outside of the one-flesh relationship of a married couple is adultery.

Both are in error. Baha’u’llah has taught the truth. Surely you’ve figured out by now that we believe our Prophet-Founder taught us the truth. Surely we don’t have to go over this yet again.

If both are in error then how can you claim that both Muhammad and Jesus are prophets?

 

[Nick44]

Life imprisonment being used as an alternate does not change the facts. The law not being in effect changes nothing either. Whether you like it or not, Baha’is are waiting for a period in the future when the law will be put into effect and some people will be burned alive for arson and others imprisoned for life.

You don’t know how that law will eventually be implemented and neither do I. Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah has revealed God’s Will for this new age of fulfillment, and that everything is working as planned to that end.

So, relax, no one here is asking you to accept our doctrines and explanations, or to change your beliefs, and what Baha’is believe is not in the least threatening to you,

Strange that you apparently recoil in horror over an arsonist possibly being punished by being burned, but have apparently no problem believing Qur’anic verses (literally) that God will send untold billions to burn for eternity.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

That is my question, not PR’s. And Jesus, whom you hold as a prophet, would disagree with you. He tells us that in marriage the two become one flesh, which would make it impossible for marriage to be between more than two. Having relations with anyone outside of the one-flesh relationship of a married couple is adultery.

Jesus, in His Revelation, stipulated monogamy. Muhammad, in His, allowed for polygamy. These kind of rules are not set in stone and each Manifestation of God is allowed to alter these laws as deemed necessary by the society They are sent to.

If both are in error then how can you claim that both Muhammad and Jesus are prophets?

Neither Jesus nor Mohammad are in error, their respective followers are.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Strange that you apparently recoil in horror over an arsonist possibly being punished by being burned, but have apparently no problem believing Qur’anic verses (literally) that God will send untold billions to burn for eternity.

Excellent point, my friend.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

This is just a continuation of the old Thread that ran out.

The topic please

 

[Techno2000]

The topic please

The different ideas in belief of Jesus and Baha’u’llah.

 

[Servant19]

You posted a link about Baha’is being shunned under Baha’i rule which served no purpose but to further expose the contradictions in Baha’u’llahs words about the abolishment of any sort of shunning:
“Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these words, been nullified and abolished.” Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 95

Again dear friend, I remind you, this is an abolition of shunning between the “children of men”. There is not one Bahai who shuns another by his/her own volition. It is Baha’u’llah, who is not considered one of the “children of men” who provides the directive and Bahais obey.

The gravity of going against the Holy Spirit is severe. If a man was to murder a hundred thousand Bahais, he is to be received with love, as was demonstrated in France by Abdu’l-Baha when he was met with such a person. Bahais will do likewise, but if God (not the children of men, but God) says shun those that commit crimes against the Holy Spirit, then Bahais, just like Christians and Muslims, obey.

It’s really not too hard to understand. Its a simple difference between me deciding to shun, and God deciding to shun.

The word “whatsoever” which you seem to be emphasising is a reference to whatsoever between one child of men and another child of men, not between the children of men and God.



.

 

[PRmerger]

Baha’is and Christians would agree on that point, and were a Baha’i to be flagrantly committing adultery, they would be subject to administrative sanctions.

Would discrete adultery be something that would be tolerated?

That is, is it also your paradigm that as long as no one is hurt it’s permissible? If someone is discretely cheating on his wife, as long as no one knows, is it ok by your standards?