Is I, Brian being disrespectable towards the Baha'i Faith?

S

Seeker_of_truth

Well-Known Member
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In this i mean he he being disrespectful by not listing Baha'i in the Abrahamic religions section?
I would like to know others opinion on this.
 
I think this is not an appropriate question here as the placement of Baha'i Faith was decided about a year ago and a section was devoted to discussion of this topic already... There is a "feedback" section for over all comments on the website.

It is also I believe not appropriate to allege inappropriaties on the part of the administrator here.

- Art
 
Re: Is I, Brian being disrespectful towards the Baha'i Faith?

Seeker_of_truth said:
In this i mean he he being disrespectful by not listing Baha'i in the Abrahamic religions section?
I would like to know others opinion on this.
Click to expand...


Ok, I'm not a Baha'i but...

Judaism, Christianity and Islam have an entirely levantine/semitic prophetic heritage. And Abraham was the traditional progenitor of the people who established these faiths. You could even say these faiths are exclusively Abrahamic, that the only legitimate prophetic chain is the one that runs through Abraham's loins.

However, the Baha'i faith is not exclusively Abrahamic, it is INCLUSIVELY Abrahamic. You might say that the Baha'i faith is the natural successor to Islam, but you also believe that the Baha'i faith is the natural successor to the Vedic and Zoroastrian traditions.

By lumping the Baha'i faith in with the Abrahamics, we would be neglecting the contributions fom other prophetic and wisdom heritages that include Sri Krsna, Zarathustra, Gura Nanak, et al.

I think what you really would like to see is the Baha'i faith being compared to Christianity and Islam as WORLD religions, i.e. those religions that have established themselves throughout the whole world actively removing racial, tribal and language barriers. This would be in contrast to Judaism, Sikhism, and Hinduism which are largely ethnic religions - though I acknowledge that even these religions can be embraced by anyone, they are traditionally associated with specific ethnic groups.

My thoughts
 
There is another thread in which he explains his reasoning.
I dont think he was being intentionally disrespectful, I thought he was pretty sincere in his judgement putting The Bahai Faith in the Modern Religion forum. I think one of the requirements to be in the Abrahamic section on this site is age. The Bahai religion's relative newness and acceptance of Buddhism and Hinduism warranted it to be here also. Although the Bahai Faith qualifies as an Abrahamic religion because it traces itself to Abraham and is Monotheistic. You could say it is both Abrahamic and Modern. I dont think it being here overlooks its undeniable Abrahamic origin. I think as long as it is credited as an independant religion its ok, I,Brian is the CEO of the site so its his call.
 
This is the 3rd thread on this topic - would be nice to read the replies in the previous ones. :)

As before, I'm not trying to disrespect any specific faith - Sikh, Rastafarian, and Zoroastrianism could also claim placement in the Abrahamic section, and I'm not trying to disrespect those either. :)

Anyway, will move this to Feedback, again. :)
 
Note to Aburaees:

Aburaees,

Thanks for posting!

You wrote:

"the Baha'i faith is not exclusively Abrahamic, it is INCLUSIVELY Abrahamic. You might say that the Baha'i faith is the natural successor to Islam, but you also believe that the Baha'i faith is the natural successor to the Vedic and Zoroastrian traditions. ....By lumping the Baha'i faith in with the Abrahamics, we would be neglecting the contributions fom other prophetic and wisdom heritages that include Sri Krsna, Zarathustra, Gura Nanak, et al."

Thanks for your comments.

I think I like your remark that Baha'i Faith being "inclusively Abrahamic".

As Baha'is we do accept Zoroaster as a Manifestation of God and that Baha'u'llah had descent from Him through the Sassanid dynasty that also claimed descent from Zoroaster. And you are correct in your statement that we believe there were prophecies in Zoroastrianism and Hinduism that alluded to Baha'u'llah.

We also regard Krishna and Buddha as Manifestations of God but are not sure that the scriptures attributed to these important figures are authentic.

As Baha'is we have no official postition on Guru Nanak but maintain cordial relations with Sikhs.

We also believe Baha'u'llah descended from the line of Keturah the third wife of Abraham and the Bab was a Siyyid or descendent of Prophet Muhammad.

- Art
 
It's the Baha`i position that Zoroaster IS Abrahamic as well. Which is recognized by Muhammad since the Prophet recognizes the Zoroastrian faith as part of the descent through Abraham as well.

Regards,
Scott
 
Re: Is I, Brian being disrespectful towards the Baha'i Faith?

aburaees said:
Ok, I'm not a Baha'i but...

...
I think what you really would like to see is the Baha'i faith being compared to Christianity and Islam as WORLD religions, i.e. those religions that have established themselves throughout the whole world actively removing racial, tribal and language barriers. This would be in contrast to Judaism, Sikhism, and Hinduism which are largely ethnic religions - though I acknowledge that even these religions can be embraced by anyone, they are traditionally associated with specific ethnic groups.

My thoughts
Click to expand...

I only quoted part of your thoughts as I think others have responded well to them already. I just wanted to say I appreciate your awareness of the Baha'i Faith and its worldly role. Your suggestion that World Religions could, in itself, be a separate category, underlines that there are many ways to organize a forum such as this one. I am glad you chose to share your thoughts with us.

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