Hi

RJM said:
@Tone Bristow-Stagg
I'm not being deliberately obstructive. But it is the very long-winded wordiness of the whole business that has such a negative effect on me. If Baha'u'llah is the Christ, he could express himself in better terms, imo

Majestic and poetic words mean nothing in themselves. After all this I'm still uncertain about the value of the central message: There will be peace on earth under Baha'u'llah. One world, One religion'

Is that it?

It doesn't touch my heart and soul. It doesn't reach me in the way the parables and sacrifice of Jesus do. It's not for me. It's like some sort of manifesto. It really doesn't reach me at all.
Click to expand...

Its all your choice RJM, life is all about how you see what is important. Is life to feed our own needs and desires, or are we here to help each other and be part of the organic whole?

I would offer one will never see the pearls in the religious scriptures unless and until they dive in to find them.

One has to be searching to find things they have not yet found.

"… this is the station of searching after truth and seeking the knowledge of the real—that station wherein the sore athirst longs for the water of life and the struggling fish reaches the sea, wherein the ailing soul seeks the true physician and partakes of divine healing, wherein the lost caraan finds the path of truth and the aimless and wandering ship attains the shore of salvation—the seeker must therefore be endowed with certain attributes. First, he must be fair-minded and detached from all save God. His heart must be entirely directed towards the Supreme Horizon and freed from the bondage of vain and selfish desires, for these are obstacles on the path. Furthermore, he must endure every tribulation, embody the utmost purity and sanctity, and renounce the love or hatred of all the peoples of the world, lest his love for one thing hinder him from investigating another, or his hatred for something prevent him from discerning its truth. This is the station of search, and the seeker must be endowed with these qualities and attributes—that is, until he attains this station it will be impossible for him to gain the knowledge of the Sun of Truth. – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, newly revised edition, pp. 44-45.

Regards Tony
 
Aupmanyav said:
No. Bab was different. He was the Mahdi, the returning Jesus, herald of the other Iranian, as per Bahai belief. Is that right, Tony?
Or Bahaollah was the returning Jesus? I am a bit confused here.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Bab was indeed the Gate for the "Glory of God", the event awaited by the Jews and Christianity, the day foretold in all scriptures.

Every person gets to see those events as they choose to.

Stay well, stay happy.

Regards Tony
 
RJM said:
Most people aren't ready for the truth?
Seven words
Click to expand...

Seven words does not explain the potential of the Atom.

What I see with the Word of God is like a mighty ocean behind a massive dam trickling through a tiny hole wanting to be released.

Yet there is no one on the other side of that dam that can partake of more than those few drops.

I see no men have suffered more than the Messengers, given what becomes mostly a thankless task, rejected by the multitudes when all they are here to do is bring Truth, Love and Unity. My heart is for them.

Regards Tony
 
Tone Bristow-Stagg said:
Its all your choice RJM, life is all about how you see what is important. Is life to feed our own needs and desires, or are we here to help each other and be part of the organic whole?

I would offer one will never see the pearls in the religious scriptures unless and until they dive in to find them.

One has to be searching to find things they have not yet found.
Click to expand...
All the more reason to make the writing accessible, imo. The I Ching is accessible. Patanjali is accessible. The Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita are accessible. The OT and NT are pithy and accessible -- the Quran too. Not a word wasted anywhere ...

The issue is that the writings of Baha'u'llah are the scripture; the writings of Baha'u'llah are not the consequent reams of scripture commentary, that flow from the other sacred scripture. It's all just too many words, for me, imo ...
 
Tone Bristow-Stagg said:
is the station of searching after truth and seeking the knowledge of the real—that station wherein the sore athirst longs for the water of life and the struggling fish reaches the sea, wherein the ailing soul seeks the true physician and partakes of divine healing, wherein the lost caraan finds the path of truth and the aimless and wandering ship attains the shore of salvation—the seeker must therefore be endowed with certain attributes. First, he must be fair-minded and detached from all save God...

and on and on ...
Click to expand...
It's the first commandment. It's nothing new.

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first commandment… There is none other commandment greater.”
Mark 12:30-31, “
 
RJM said:
All the more reason to make the writing accessible, imo. The I Ching is accessible. Patanjali is accessible. The Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita are accessible. The OT and NT are pithy and accessible -- the Quran too. Not a word wasted anywhere ...

The issue is that the writings of Baha'u'llah are the scripture; the writings of Baha'u'llah are not the consequent reams of scripture commentary, that flow from the other sacred scripture. It's all just too many words, for me, imo ...
Click to expand...

What can I say but throw hands in air as John 16 tells us;

12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.
15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

So now one would be saying that Jesus promised us too much? All Truth means we have to consider all past scriptures and what is to come.

Makes sense, that it takes a lot of words to explain it all.

As far as being assessable, here they are;

https://www.bahai.org/library/

That's it RJM, over and out.

Regards Tony
 
Tone Bristow-Stagg said:
" this is the station .. of the Sun of Truth." – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, newly revised edition, pp. 44-45.
Click to expand...
Firstly this passage is from Abdul Baha and not from Bahollah; and secondly, even these have been revised and newly revised. How do you say that Bahai message is not corrupted?

Even with all revisions, I find it difficult to make a head or tail out of Bahai writings. It seems as if Bahai writings are meant to confuse.
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
Firstly this passage is from Abdul Baha and not from Bahollah; and secondly, even these have been revised and newly revised. How do you say that Bahai message is not corrupted?
Even with all revisions, I find it difficult to make a head or tail out of Bahai writings.
Click to expand...

Abdul'baha was given full authority of interpretation by Baha'u'llah. None knew the Message better, Abdul'baha as a young child had already recognised the Station of his Father.

The revision was a translation that was undertaken to better explain in English, what Abdul'baha was offering.

All the best. Regards Tony
 
Well I think it's a problem for an organisation that basically asks no more of others than just to read its literature -- that the writings are not only quite dense and lengthy, but also complicated by the use of olde worlde English trying to imitate the King James Bible, but which actually (to me) just sounds laboured and pretentious.

A teacher's remit is to be clear, and a writer's job is to write in an understandable way. It's not the reader's fault, faced with tomes of stuff to read through.

Perhaps the elders of this new Baha'i faith will eventually recognize and attend to the issue.

Anyway, it's just my own opinion ...
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
It was a family enterprise, father to son, son to his grandson, just like so many others in Islam, Ismailies, Ahmadiyyyas, Dawoodis, etc. Unfortunately the line went intestate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imamate
Click to expand...
RJM said:
Well I think it's a problem for an organisation that basically asks no more of others than just to read its literature -- that the writings are not only quite dense and lengthy, but also complicated by the use of olde worlde English trying to imitate the King James Bible, but which actually (to me) just sounds laboured and pretentious.

A teacher's remit is to be clear, and a writer's job is to write in an understandable way. It's not the reader's fault, faced with tomes of stuff to read through.

Perhaps the elders of this new Baha'i faith will eventually recognize and attend to the issue.

Anyway, it's just my own opinion ...
Click to expand...

The other consideration is that bigotry is an issue we can face with our own selves.

Regards Tony
 
Tone Bristow-Stagg said:
The other consideration is that bigotry is an issue we can face with our own selves.

Regards Tony
Click to expand...
Well an atheist can't be expected to support any theist faith.

Selling a new Christ, Moses or Muhammad to Christians, Jews and Muslims can be expected to meet scepticism. The same would apply to other religions, imo

For myself I've no problem with Baha'i believing whatever they choose. The problem would seem to be from their side, concerning my preferred option to stick to my own beliefs for now, considering the extraordinary claims. Ok?

If that's considered bigotry ...
 
Last edited:
Those who do not accept Bahaollah will anger God and will remain far from Him (that is a punishment in itself). His blessings will not be available to them. In one of his writings Bahaollah asked God to punish them. He said something like 'terrible is the retribution of Allah'. I do not remember the words exactly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Aupmanyav said:
Those who do not accept Bahaollah will anger God and will remain far from Him (that is a punishment in itself). His blessings will not be available to them. In one of his writings Bahaollah asked God to punish them. He said something like 'terrible is the retribution of Allah'. I do not remember the words exactly.
Click to expand...

Most religions have unpleasant passages like that in their scriptures. The Fire-and-Brimstone passages in the Revelation 20. Or The Buddha ranting about icchantikas (unbelievers) in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, basically denying them Nirvana. The ist goes on... and it includes Baha'u'llah.

One of the great things of being godless, I find, is how I can read the humanity of the authors in such passages, without any gods obscuring the picture.

Jesus had his limits, and when he was pushed over them, such as when someone threw the book at him for not having ritually washed his hands before eating, he reacted like a real human being, loud and clear, cussing and shouting maledictions.

The Buddha had his bad days with headache and migraine, when he got awfully cranky, and there are passages in the Pali Canon where he really lost it, such as when someone tried to marry off their daughter to him, and he got really rude and hurtful towards the poor prospective bride.

To me, it's a good thing that these great figures are not portrayed as non-human, but are there, warts and all. "Enlightenment plus 2 dollars will get me a can of soda" - or "Enlightenment and a good therapist will help me deal with my personal issues".

Transcendent means will not solve our immanent problems. This is my belief.
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Well an atheist can't be expected to support any theist faith.

Selling a new Christ, Moses or Muhammad to Christians, Jews and Muslims can be expected to meet scepticism. The same would apply to other religions, imo

For myself I've no problem with Baha'i believing whatever they choose. The problem would seem to be from their side, concerning my preferred option to stick to my own beliefs for now, considering the extraordinary claims. Ok?

If that's considered bigotry ...
Click to expand...

A good friend of mine posted this on Facebook this morning (Graham Nicholson in case you want to look him up), so thought I would share, to me he made a very compelling and truthful summary of the history of faith.

"Why is it that religionists can accept the founding spiritual predecessors of their own religion's Founder, but never the spiritual successors of that Founder? It is like embracing a succession of earlier founders leading to their own religion, but from the coming of their own Founder the spiritual process is seen as coming to a complete and final stop, for all time. Doesn't matter if global circumstance radically change thereafter, the process is seen as being at an end for all time. Spiritual truth is seen as being final, exhaustive, exclusive, and everything seeking spiritual recognition thereafter is rejected without enquiry as being false. And this despite the promises of their own Founder of a later return, a promise that can never be recognised due to confining preconceptions of the Founder's followers.

The idea that the "return" is a spiritual concept is usually rejected and interpreted literally to mean a physical concept, a return in the imagined physical form of their own Founder, perhaps floating down in a cloud or in some other miraculous physical way. It is really designed to reject all-comers without investigation so as to preserve the accumulated religious status quo. No wonder the spirit ossifies. The concept of ongoing spiritual renewal is rejected even though this is inherent in their own teachings.

The end result? Religions become havens of exclusivist dogma and ritual, form rather than substance, bigotry and prejudice, spiritual argument, religious division and decline. The risks of global disunity and even violence increase. In an increasingly interdependent global human community surely this not a healthy development."

That really does say it all.

Regards Tony
 
Aupmanyav said:
Those who do not accept Bahaollah will anger God and will remain far from Him (that is a punishment in itself). His blessings will not be available to them. In one of his writings Bahaollah asked God to punish them. He said something like 'terrible is the retribution of Allah'. I do not remember the words exactly.
Click to expand...

The retributive calamities are our choices. We punish ourselves by not embracing the wisdom of God.

God says Love, we hate and the penalty is in that choice.

God offers we must become as one people on one planet, we choose predudice and division, the calamities are of our choices.

Those blessings are always available, our choices define our reality. This is firm logic and very intune with a scientific mind.

You might see this process as Karma?

Regards Tony
 
Cino said:
Transcendent means will not solve our immanent problems. This is my belief.
Click to expand...

I can only offer one needs to use what God offered to solve the problems, it is way more then our self.

"..My object is none other than the betterment of the world and the tranquillity of its peoples. The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded..."

The Messengers have a twofold station, they are born men like us subject to the world we also face, but born of the divine and transcendent mind. They have access to all knowledge and know what is best for humanity in the age they are born.

This goes beyond what any one human believes, but ironically, is subject to acceptance and faith.

Such is the quandary of choice. I see the change happens when we think less of self and think more of others, but that is also very complex.

Regards Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top