Exploring Bahaism

[Rob_in_Oregon]

If God is the author of all the contradictions in different religions, then there is no consistency or immutability in Him. And it follows from this that we cannot know Him, as He is one thing this moment, and very different the next moment. The truth cannot be one thing now, and another thing later. Our understanding of God’s truth can evolve, but God’s truth never changes. For example, God cannot be both a trinity and not a trinity at the same time. And it is the long-standing tradition of Catholicism that God does not change. People who have erroneous religious perceptions are not creating their own reality; they are simply wrong. BTW: The followers of B’hai are some of the nicest people I’ve ever met. God bless you…

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

If God is the author of all the contradictions in different religions, then there is no consistency or immutability in Him. And it follows from this that we cannot know Him, as He is one thing this moment, and very different the next moment. The truth cannot be one thing now, and another thing later. Our understanding of God’s truth can evolve, but God’s truth never changes. For example, God cannot be both a trinity and not a trinity at the same time. And it is the long-standing tradition of Catholicism that God does not change. People who have erroneous religious perceptions are not creating their own reality; they are simply wrong. BTW: The followers of B’hai are some of the nicest people I’ve ever met. God bless you…

Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 5/5/89:
“. . . the Christian doctrine on the Trinity explicitly rejects any form of ‘tritheism’ or ‘polytheism.’ In this sense, i.e., with reference to the One Divine Substance, there is significant correspondence between Christianity and Islam.”

2/24/00: “Islam is a religion.”

Morocco, 8/19/85, to Muslim youth: “…We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God who created the world and brings his creature to their perfection.”
**
Blessed is the one who acknowledges our Creator and His wonders, and who confesses that He is not to be questioned about what He does.**
Mirzah Husayn Ali

 

[arthra]

With all due respect to Techno for starting this thread on “Non-Catholic Religions”… I wanted to suggest that the “Bahaism” was a term used by some scholars in the early twentieth century to refer to our Faith… Nowadays “Baha’i Faith” is the accepted term.

We do acknowledge that God is One and over time has sent Messengers and Prophets at various times over the millennia… just as the “old covenant” had laws and ordinances related to society at the time and was replaced by the new covenant so today there were new laws and ordinances that replaced the older ones… this is not God in competition with Himself this is in our view what we call “progressive revelation”…

It’s true that as Baha’is we believe God as Creator has continued to create and that the universe has had no beginning…

Regarding the neighbor we applaud what Jesus taught and it is further taught in the Writings:

*And further We have said: "Deal not treacherously with the substance of your neighbor. Be ye trustworthy on earth, and withhold not from the poor the things given unto you by God through His grace. He, verily, will bestow upon you the double of what ye possess. He, in truth, is the All-Bounteous, the Most Generous. O people of Baha! Subdue the citadels of men’s hearts with the swords of wisdom and of utterance. They that dispute, as prompted by their desires, are indeed wrapped in a palpable veil.
*
~ Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 54

 

[Techno2000]

jeffrey erwin

In response to Techno2000 saying . . .

QUOTE:
Why would God set up competing religions ?

You said . . .

QUOTE:
The simple answer would be to teach us tolerance of other faiths and to love our brothers and sisters of other faiths.

But this has the built-in false pre-supposition that you cannot affirm the fullness of the truth, AND love your brothers and sisters of other faiths while affirming this FULLNESS of the Truth.

Your answer is also “intolerant” of the ONE fullness of Truth.

Your reply did not seem persuasive to me.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Right,God has to set up all kinds of different religions so we can learn tolerance

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Christianity: the best outcome for man after death is heaven, where he retains his individuality but is perfectly happy, united with his Creator (Who is Personal).

Buddhism: the best outcome for man is to lose his individuality and sort of disperse. There is no Personal God. (Sort of.)

These conflict. One does not evolve out of the other.

So no, it makes no sense to me. Given the fundamental contradictions among religions, and the fact that most of them say that the others are wrong, I don’t think it makes sense to say that they’re part of continuing revelation.

 

[jane_doe]

Why would God set up competing religions ?

This question is probably best dealt with in it’s own thread (unless you’re specifically interested in the Bahai perspective on it).

 

[Iron_Donkey]

This question is probably best dealt with in it’s own thread (unless you’re specifically interested in the Bahai perspective on it).

From what I understand, the Bahai say that each religion was actually set up by God, whereas most other religions say that there is one true religion, and that other religions are false and not set up by God (but might be, say, set up by someone who understood somethings about God but not others, or might be founded in something truly revealed by God, but corrupted by man, or any number of other things so that they might not be completely wrong).

So I think this question makes sense from this perspective: why would God “reveal” different false things to different people, thus starting lots of religions that are all wrong?

 

[Techno2000]

From what I understand, the Bahai say that each religion was actually set up by God, whereas most other religions say that there is one true religion, and that other religions are false and not set up by God (but might be, say, set up by someone who understood somethings about God but not others, or might be founded in something truly revealed by God, but corrupted by man, or any number of other things so that they might not be completely wrong).

So I think this question makes sense from this perspective: why would God “reveal” different false things to different people, thus starting lots of religions that are all wrong?

Right. you can’t put a square peg in a round hole.

 

[Servant19]

Christianity: the best outcome for man after death is heaven, where he retains his individuality but is perfectly happy, united with his Creator (Who is Personal).

Buddhism: the best outcome for man is to lose his individuality and sort of disperse. There is no Personal God. (Sort of.)

These conflict. One does not evolve out of the other.

So no, it makes no sense to me. Given the fundamental contradictions among religions, and the fact that most of them say that the others are wrong, I don’t think it makes sense to say that they’re part of continuing revelation.

Is it possible that when you are truly united with God there is no self, but only the God in you?

One has to contemplate, is self identity originating from the human being or from God?



There is tremendous similarity between Buddhism and Christianity.
“Seeing Christ in all things” is the ultimate Nirvana, where nothing but Christ exists. If nothing but Christ exists then there is no you, only the Christ in you, and in all things.

This is Nirvana

.

 

[Servant19]

From what I understand, the Bahai say that each religion was actually set up by God, whereas most other religions say that there is one true religion, and that other religions are false and not set up by God (but might be, say, set up by someone who understood somethings about God but not others, or might be founded in something truly revealed by God, but corrupted by man, or any number of other things so that they might not be completely wrong).

So I think this question makes sense from this perspective: why would God “reveal” different false things to different people, thus starting lots of religions that are all wrong?

I would humbly suggest that it is not God that reveals false things but we humans that interpret falsely

Viewed with a spiritual lens, one can see the different terminologies used in all religions to describe the same spiritual concepts.



.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

I do have a few issues with the Baha’i Faith, but those are not with any teaching of Baha’u’llah, but rather in the failure of the Universal House of Justice to completely implement those teachings. For instance, Baha’u’llah emphatically stated that Certitude was reserved for himself alone. Therefore, the granting of certitude to any other, even a son of his, cannot be legitimate.

This mistake has led to a severe problem. In “Some Answered Questions” Abdul Baha stated (in very polite language) that the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened only on a mental level and were not physical realities. He is reputed to have done this in order to appeal to the “rational elements” of European society.

I have, of course, pointed this out to the National Spiritual Assembly USA, but they are really bound by the edicts of the UHJ and can make no revisions themselves. (Just as Catholics are bound to the Scripture status of St. Paul’s writings even if those should conflict with our Lord’s Gospel.)

The Baha’i Faith would be more acceptable to Catholics and Christians in general if the UHJ would simply correct Abdul Baha’s obvious mistake. It shouldn’t be a big deal, but apparently it is.

 

[Techno2000]

I would humbly suggest that it is not God that reveals false things but we humans that interpret falsely

Viewed with a spiritual lens, one can see the different terminologies used in all religions to describe the same spiritual concepts.



.

And through the lens of christianity I see huge differences between these religions.

 

[Servant19]

And through the lens of christianity I see huge differences between these religions.

Only one lens brings us towards a unification under God.

…if the lens of Christianity is not spiritual and cannot unite religions, what purpose does it serve?

.

 

[Servant19]

I do have a few issues with the Baha’i Faith, but those are not with any teaching of Baha’u’llah, but rather in the failure of the Universal House of Justice to completely implement those teachings. For instance, Baha’u’llah emphatically stated that Certitude was reserved for himself alone. Therefore, the granting of certitude to any other, even a son of his, cannot be legitimate.

This mistake has led to a severe problem. In “Some Answered Questions” Abdul Baha stated (in very polite language) that the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened only on a mental level and were not physical realities. He is reputed to have done this in order to appeal to the “rational elements” of European society.

I have, of course, pointed this out to the National Spiritual Assembly USA, but they are really bound by the edicts of the UHJ and can make no revisions themselves. (Just as Catholics are bound to the Scripture status of St. Paul’s writings even if those should conflict with our Lord’s Gospel.)

The Baha’i Faith would be more acceptable to Catholics and Christians in general if the UHJ would simply correct Abdul Baha’s obvious mistake. It shouldn’t be a big deal, but apparently it is.

Hi there,

There is no teaching from Abdu’l-Baha that states that the resurrection was only a mental one.

The teaching is that the most important understanding and interpretation from the resurrection is that of the spiritual realm, for as a Life-Giving Spirit Jesus opened the gates of heaven for all.

What a tremendous bounty…

.

 

[Techno2000]

Only one lens brings us towards a unification under God.

…if the lens of Christianity is not spiritual and cannot unite religions, what purpose does it serve?

.

Its spiritual enough for you to alway Quote from it.

 

[Techno2000]

Only one lens brings us towards a unification under God.

.

No unification, only separation, the way Hell is separated from Heaven.

Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

Matthew 25:32

This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and **separate **the wicked from the righteous

Matthew 25:32

 

[Techno2000]

…if the lens of Christianity is not spiritual and cannot unite religions, what purpose does it serve?

.

Is this only thing your religion talks about is “Unity” what about how to go to heaven and not go to Hell, I can see how different the Catholic Church is from the Baha’is faith.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Only one lens brings us towards a unification under God.

…if the lens of Christianity is not spiritual and cannot unite religions, what purpose does it serve?

.

To bring the gospel of forgiveness and salvation to those that hear it. Jesus is quite clear, not all will be saved as unfortunate as that is. Christianity is spiritual but often times it does not unite but divides sharply.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Is it possible that when you are truly united with God there is no self, but only the God in you?

One has to contemplate, is self identity originating from the human being or from God?



There is tremendous similarity between Buddhism and Christianity.
“Seeing Christ in all things” is the ultimate Nirvana, where nothing but Christ exists. If nothing but Christ exists then there is no you, only the Christ in you, and in all things.

This is Nirvana

.

Possible, for a broad sense of the word possible, but not what Christianity teaches, and it conflicts with what Christianity teaches.

I mean (a priori) all kinds of things could be true. But Christianity does not teach that nothing but Christ exists. Christianity teaches that all kinds of things exist, and that their existence as things that are themselves, and are distinct from other things, is actually good - rather than a sort of illusoryish thing that ought to be transcended. (Caveat: the God is Existence thing has sometimes been phrased “only God exists, others merely have existence,” but even under this phrasing, the other things are actually separate from God, and this fact is good, and they actually have the existence that they have - there is no “illusion of individuality” thing going on.)

Buddhism does not teach this.

Again, (leaving aside arguments showing one way or the other) either is a possible world view. But they can’t both be true, and so the people who taught them can’t both be right.

I would humbly suggest that it is not God that reveals false things but we humans that interpret falsely

It’s certainly possible that humans misinterpret, and in fact I would say they do so all the time.

Nevertheless if Prophet Bob says X, and Prophet Fred says Not X, then one of them is wrong. If God actually spoke to both of them, then either one of them is being dishonest (and so his religion is false), or God isn’t a very good communicator, and so one of them gets the wrong idea and his religion is also false.

It is my position that God can communicate clearly if He so chooses, and that He can find honest prophets. Therefore, it seems reasonable that rather than there being lots of “true” religions that contradict each other (and so aren’t actually true but were revealed, at least), that there are lots of false (to varying degrees and for various reasons) religions and at most one true one.

Viewed with a spiritual lens, one can see the different terminologies used in all religions to describe the same spiritual concepts.

Quiet often there are similarities - as there should be. We’re all grasping after truth, and there is one truth. To the extent that we don’t mess up when we approach it, we will find agreement.

But quiet often there are huge dissimilarities, like the one I mentioned between Buddhism and Christianity - that is not a false difference. At most one is true, the other is false. And so both can’t be the revelations of an honest God.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Hi there,

There is no teaching from Abdu’l-Baha that states that the resurrection was only a mental one.
.

From “Some Answered Questions:” Part 2, pgs 22-23:

“Thus if the Sacred Scriptures speak of raising the dead, the meaning is that they attained everlasting life. . .”

“The resurrection of the Manifestations of God is not of the body.” “His [Jesus’s] disappearance into the earth for three days must also have a mystical rather than a literal meaning. In the same manner, His resurrection from the bosom of he earth is a mystical matter and expresses a spiritual rather than a material condition.”

“We explain, therefore, the meaning of Christ’s resurrection in the following way: After the martyrdom of Christ, the Apostles were perplexed and dismayed. The reality of Christ which consists in His teachings, …[etc] was hidden and concealed for two or three days…After three days the Apostles became firm and steadfast, arose,…,resolved,… .and endeavoured to serve Him. Then did the reality of Christ become resplendent. . .and His teachings and admonitions become manifest and visible…”

“Such is the meaning of the Resurrection. . .”

I am not aware that Baha’u’llah ever made any statement that would deny the physical resurrection (in material body) of Jesus. But, because of Abdul Baha’s writing, members of the Baha’i Faith, as far as I am aware, do not accept the physical resurrection of our Lord’s body as a reality.

Please feel free to say that you do so.