S
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
This: “But as humans we acknowledge the epistemological reality of the Messenger of God who represents the Godhead for each age”Can you explain how the Baha’i belief is not monotheistic please?
.
And this: “His Messengers are the Godhead Kate”
And this: "Jesus was the human Godhead for all humans until Muhammad declared “I am”
S
Servant19
Guest
meltzerboy
New member
I think it depends on how you define godhead with respect to the messengers of G-d. If you define the term as the equivalent of G-d, the manifestations of G-d, or lesser gods, none of these is monotheistic. So, what exactly do you mean by godhead?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, I suppose it’s as monotheistic as Mormonism is. When you want to declare that a bunch of folks are manifestations of God that sounds a lot like pantheism.
V
Vouthon
Guest
I disagree sister, with humility and respectfully so
The Oneness of God is a central teaching of the Baha’i Faith. As with Islam, He has no partners. The belief in Manifestations of God, while beyond doubt more exalted figures than our understanding of prophets, are not incarnations of God as with Jesus Christ for us - regardless of how Baha’is at times seem to make it appear such. They are compared to mirrors, created intermediaries that manifest His Nature to humankind and through whom we learn His Will for civilizational and individual progress on earth. Therefore, they do not contravene the Unity of the Godhead. If Baha’is appear to indicate otherwise, the fault is in imprecision of language, not the monotheism of the Baha’i Faith itself.Manifestations are more akin to the Abrahamic ‘angels’. They are immortal spiritual beings who pre-existed their corporeal lives on earth, in a spiritual world. Except for the fact that our angels do not and cannot incarnate, it might be good to view them this way.
It would be more accurate, therefore, to equate Baha’is with Jehovah’s Witnesses rather than Mormons. Witnesses hold Jesus to be the incarnation of the Archangel Michael. They are strict monotheists.
Don’t forget Zoroastrians and Sikhs as well. They are both pretty significant non-Abrahamic monotheistic religions, the former predating Christianity and exerting an influence on the formation of Judaism. I have a particular fondness for the Sikhs since their founder Guru Nanak made it perfectly clear that he did not claim to be a prophet, incarnation of God or messenger. He just expressed openly the fact that he, a humble and ordinary man, had received enlightenment from God and tried to unite Hindus and Muslims around a common conception of Deity.
I think that his followers lead very upstanding lives of great virtue.
It should do good to remember that there are other monotheisms outside of the Abrahamic category.
Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican II, states: "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (Lumen Gentium 16)
Muslims have pride of place, after Judaism, as the largest monotheistic religion professing the faith of Abraham, nonetheless they are merely the “first” among a multitude of other “monotheisms”, implied but not named explicitly.
S
Servant19
Guest
Thankyou Meltzer, this clarifies where the misunderstanding is
The Manifestations of God, (Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, etc) are not ACTUALLY God, ontologically.
They are however as close to God in human form that we can understand.
There is only one GOD
Yes, Baha’u’llah represents the Father, and YHWH, but He too says He is separate from the “Unknown Essence of Essences”
S
Servant19
Guest
…as always brother…:hug3:I disagree sister, with humility and respectfully so
Don’t forget Zoroastrians and Sikhs as well. They are both pretty significant non-Abrahamic monotheistic religions, the former predating Christianity and exerting an influence on the formation of Judaism. I have a particular fondness for the Sikhs since their founder Guru Nanak made it perfectly clear that he did not claim to be a prophet, incarnation of God or messenger. He just expressed openly the fact that he, a humble and ordinary man, had received enlightenment from God and tried to unite Hindus and Muslims around a common conception of Deity.
I think that his followers lead very upstanding lives of great virtue.
It should do good to remember that there are other monotheisms outside of the Abrahamic category.
Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican II, states: "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (Lumen Gentium 16)
Muslims have pride of place, after Judaism, as the largest monotheistic religion professing the faith of Abraham, nonetheless they are merely the “first” among a multitude of other “monotheisms”, implied but not named explicitly.
.
P
PRmerger
Guest
As I said, I would grant that Bahais are monotheistic in the same way that I would cede that Mormons are Christians/monotheists–only if you re-define the terms as classically understood.I disagree sister, with humility and respectfully so
Manifestations are more akin to the Abrahamic ‘angels’. They are immortal spiritual beings who pre-existed their corporeal lives on earth, in a spiritual world. Except for the fact that our angels do not and cannot incarnate, it might be good to view them this way.
It would be more accurate, therefore, to equate Baha’is with Jehovah’s Witnesses rather than Mormons. Witnesses hold Jesus to be the incarnation of the Archangel Michael. They are strict monotheists.
Don’t forget Zoroastrians and Sikhs as well. They are both pretty significant non-Abrahamic monotheistic religions, the former predating Christianity and exerting an influence on the formation of Judaism. I have a particular fondness for the Sikhs since their founder Guru Nanak made it perfectly clear that he did not claim to be a prophet, incarnation of God or messenger. He just expressed openly the fact that he, a humble and ordinary man, had received enlightenment from God and tried to unite Hindus and Muslims around a common conception of Deity.
I think that his followers lead very upstanding lives of great virtue.
It should do good to remember that there are other monotheisms outside of the Abrahamic category.
Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican II, states: "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (Lumen Gentium 16)
Muslims have pride of place, after Judaism, as the largest monotheistic religion professing the faith of Abraham, nonetheless they are merely the “first” among a multitude of other “monotheisms”, implied but not named explicitly.
And I could agree with you about Bahais being more like JWs, as the parallel goes to re-defining terms in order to claim that one belongs to the group.
Please note that it was never my intention to provide an inexhaustible list of monotheistic religions.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Is creation ex nihilo?
V
Vouthon
Guest
Oh I know that
I was only noting this as an aside, so that we do not confine monotheism to Abrahamic faiths, when it can and does extend beyond this.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh I know that
V
Vouthon
Guest
That is an interesting question and it has been discussed before in a previous Baha’i thread.
There always seemed to me a sort of tension in this area. I, of course, cannot and will not speak for Baha’is (it would not be fitting me for me to speak for their faith), I offer this only as a ‘starter’ to be picked up and clarified by a knowledgeable Baha’i. Allow me to illustrate:
Compare:
So the Bab and Baha’u’llah would, on the surface, appear to diverge on this dilemma.
But Abdu’l-Baha softened over the edges through the use of a relativism arguement:
The crux for me, therefore, is that Baha’is either do not believe in creation ex nihilo or are possibly stressing the eternality and timelessness of God’s creative activity, rather than the eternality of matter (which conflicts sharply with Christian doctrine).
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Interesting, actually the process is understandable. As to good and evil, good being the absence of evil, then good is seen as the progress of one’s soul towards God in the afterlife, divinization. What of the evil that becomes absent of the good through free-will? Also if there is no physical resurrection and only spiritual, than what difference is in the existence of good and the evil souls without a body in relation to good and evil as far as existence in eternity. Either way you cannot not exist.
I guess the question is also why would God create man to harvest souls without connection to creation when he could have just created the souls without creation
I guess the question is also why would God create man to harvest souls without connection to creation when he could have just created the souls without creation
K
Katie_Kilbane
Guest
GODHEAD:
- Divinity; godhood.
- The Christian God, especially the Trinity.
- The essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly.
No.
Firstly, It didn’t happen in a moment but over the course of 23 years – precept upon precept. For ten years he called the people of Makkah to “At-Tawheed”- the purified monotheism that all Prophets and Messengers called to. And for 13 years he called to tawheed AND established the Shariah - the Law of how to live every aspect of your life according to the way your Creator has commanded. The Message of pure Monotheism was the same for all prophets and messengers from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them all). But only Messengers received laws and were commanded to propagate them.
Secondly, never was “the whole world” expected to believe in the message of Islaam. Many verses in Quran prove this point:
*And most of mankind will not believe even if you desire it eagerly. (Quran 12:103)
It is the same to them whether you warn them or you warn them not, they will not believe. (Quran 36:10)
I will turn away from My signs those who are arrogant upon the earth without right; and if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it. And if they see the way of consciousness, they will not adopt it as a way; but if they see the way of error, they will adopt it as a way. That is because they have denied Our signs and they were heedless of them. (Quran 7:146) *
And many more…
I ask Almighty God to guide us all to the Straight path - to our salvation.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Servant your contradicting yourself again. You speak to Christians who worship Jesus and say they are fine so long as they have a sincere heart. Clearly you believe this is the era of Ali Hussain, not the era of Muhammad. You said earlier it doesn’t matter if one worships a bull or whatever, it can be anything so long is one is sincere and heartfelt in his expression. You have no condemnation for the people who worshiped the Golden calf, so why should it be any different for Zeus? The martyrs could have rejected Christ and sincerely accepted Zeus and in your mind they would be none for the worse.
To contradict this is to contradict everything you have said thus far.
J
josie_L
Guest
We use both faith and reason to finagle truth, ergo, quoting scripture from the Koran alone will not convince any of us of the veracity of said book, i.e., on many levels do I object to the belief that the Koran is the actual transcribed Word of God, i.e., that Allah (which simply means God and is not in fact His name) spoke in Arabic to Mohammed is not verifiable, i.e., we have only Mohammed’s word that it was “Allah” who spoke to Him. Moreover, our Bible has already warned us that, even if an angel of light should appear with a message that even slightly deviates from the message Jesus handed down to the apostles it is to be rejected.
May Almighty God indeed guide us all to the Straight path.
K
Katie_Kilbane
Guest
Hello,
I do not wish to respond to your other claims against Allaah, Quran and Muhammad since as far as I am concerned they are baseless.
However, could you kindly direct me to that passage you mentioned above?
Thank you.
S
Servant19
Guest
Thankyou Katie.
If I may explain. I think I said that these Prophets REPRESENT the Godhead, they are not “in reality” God.
Jesus was the “Representative” of God for human beings on earth and it was the duty of all who heard His Message to accept Him, until that is, when Muhammad said that HE now “represents” God and His Book is God’s Book, and it is the duty for all to turn to His Book. Isn’t that correct?
I didn’t ever say that ALL on earth WILL accept this Book, and this Message, but it is the duty of all on earth to accept…but as always some will reject…
.
.
J
josie_L
Guest
Your welcome. Here are the scriptures I refer to:
May God Almighty guide us all to the straight path.
- Status