Baha'i/Ananda Marga

I'll repost my PM to you here:



Hi Pathless -

I've certainly not deleted anything - and the logs don't show any moderator action whatsoever on anything I'm not already aware of. So I can assure you that to the best of my knowledge this is not due to any form of action by staff here.

I would have suggested that the post was not sent correctly - but this is actually the second time over as many days that someone has reported something like this.

I'm now contacting my hosting company, to see if there has been any data loss on the server, especially where older backups are used.
 
Pathless said:
The main reason for this post is that I see many similarities between Baha'i and A.M., not in the least is the subtle contradiction that the faith is universal, while at the same point of disregarding other traditions--kind of like saying, "Yes, yes, all those other faiths are good, but you should really listen to what ______ says, because he says it best. His is the word for present-day humanity."
Click to expand...

I guess I see your point, but I don't see the problem. As a Baha'i, I've decided to devote my life to the teachings of Baha'u'llah. If I'm looking for guidance, I will go to Baha'i writings first. And yes, where there are conflicts between certain teachings of Baha'i and other religions, I assume the Baha'i view takes precedence...at least in my own life.

It seems to me you just have a problem with organized religion, and the Baha'i faith is just another organization to have a problem with. You seem to have had many preconceived notions before you made your post, which essentially dismissed the entire Baha'i faith. I do thank you, however, for at least taking the time to learn how the name of the founder and central figure of the Baha'i faith is spelled, even if it was after the fact.

QG
 
Barefoot Gal said:
Shrug.
Click to expand...
Shrug indeed. I don't really have the heart for this discussion anymore. Whatever fire started this thread has since gone out; I guess I made all the criticisms and asked all the questions that I felt compelled to, and now I'm done.
You Baha'is seem to have it all worked out. I suppose that's part of the reason why I'm done. There's really no debating with you, because you so firmly believe what you believe.

I would, however, like to point out that I am not an atheist. Barefoot Gal said:
You remind me of my father, a life-long, adamant, card-carrying atheist and "Free Thought" proponent, who said to me: "The problem with you religionists is that you believe in a God!"
Click to expand...
Although I may be a free thinker, I am not an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. Also, one does not have to subscribe to any particular religion or any religion at all to believe in God.

Query Guy said:
It seems to me you just have a problem with organized religion, and the Baha'i faith is just another organization to have a problem with. You seem to have had many preconceived notions before you made your post, which essentially dismissed the entire Baha'i faith.
Click to expand...
I think he was mad becasue I originally typed Baha'u'llah's name as "Bahull'whatsisname." ;) He's right, I do have a problem with organized religion, but that's a personal problem that I have to work out. I don't have a problem with other people who get something out of organized religion--more power to them. I'm sorry if I came across as having a vendetta against or outrightly dismissing the Baha'i faith, but there are things about it that trouble me and I felt I needed to express that, which I have now done. Now I will allow you to have your forum back. ;)
 
Pathless

I'm sorry that you've lost interest -- perhaps we'll meet again in a thread where the discussion is more stimulating.

I never have been sure what you were looking for from us here ... you asked how Baha'i might be similar or differ from A.M. I answered that as best I could on what info was there. You never really asked anything further or offered info or ideas for us to explore, other than implying that our "universalism" was subtly not universal, and suggesting that you rejected Baha'u'llah's statement that another Manifestation would not appear for at least 1000 years after Him.

I think we answered that as best we could, in trying to show how we believe a Manifestation of God Who founds a major religion differs from a spiritual teacher who founds a movement or philosophy.

There was no response, question, challenge or discussion point from you on any of that. Maybe you had pithy points that were made in your lost posts!? I've got a strong feeling that you must put other things to us -- but we never saw them.

All I've been able to discern from what IS here is that you seem annoyed with us for believing in the Founder of our religion, and accepting His word as true. Thus the shrug. If we didn't believe His claim and His writings, we wouldn't be Baha'is, and we wouldn't be talking here.

I'm sorry the discussion fell flat -- I think now, that your annoyance is that we didn't give ear to your arguments -- but, methinks, they were arguments we never saw... ?

best wishes

bfg

ps my father was both an atheist and a card-carrying member of the Free Thought organization -- an organization that is frankly anti-God and anti-religion (and as adament in it's world view as any religion.) However, I wasn't assuming atheism on your part, just the parallel nature of the arguments -- to my father, the problem with religions was that they believe in God. Your argument seemed to be that the problem with religions is that they believe in the divinity of their Founders. In either case, it's an unanswerable objection.
 
Pathless:

I don't really have the heart for this discussion anymore. Whatever fire started this thread has since gone out; I guess I made all the criticisms and asked all the questions that I felt compelled to, and now I'm done.

Reply:

You know Pathless a discussion can be a positive experience for everyone... I think most Baha'is are used to criticism in some form or other as we're still relatively few in numbers and not as well known perhaps in the media... but in the past forty years or so this changing. With improved communicatrions information is more widely available adn we Baha'is welcome that.

Pathless:

You Baha'is seem to have it all worked out. I suppose that's part of the reason why I'm done. There's really no debating with you, because you so firmly believe what you believe.

Reply:

Well I don't know that we "have it all worked out"...but it's true that as a group Baha'is are united probably more than most... which is turning out to be a strength I think. Debating is also not our style, usually we prefer something called consultation with each other and finding areas of agreement and building from there and we dislike walking away from each other in a "huff" with negative feelings toward one another.

Pathless:

I would, however, like to point out that I am not an atheist. Barefoot Gal said: Although I may be a free thinker, I am not an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. Also, one does not have to subscribe to any particular religion or any religion at all to believe in God.

Reply:

I think that is a point well taken... we also value "independent investigation" of reality and bear you no ill will for whatever conclusions you come up with... conclusions of course can spawn more investigation and greater appreciation of a topic.

Pathless:

I do have a problem with organized religion, but that's a personal problem that I have to work out. I "don't" have a problem with other people who get something out of organized religion--more power to them.

Reply:

Many Baha'is joined the Faith because of their experiences in their former churches and I think they wanted or felt the need for religion and appreciate how Baha'i communities operate.

Pathless:

I'm sorry if I came across as having a vendetta against or outrightly dismissing the Baha'i faith, but there are things about it that trouble me and I felt I needed to express that, which I have now done. Now I will allow you to have your forum back.

Reply:

Well continue to give us your feedback and I think we'll do our best to respond to any other areas you find that trouble you... The forum here is still your forum anytime you choose to use it!

In friendship,

- Art
 
Vapour said:
I have invited a friemd of mine (muslim) to this forum. See how he respond (that is if he decide to respond).
Click to expand...

An update. My friend sent me an email.

"ps i am not in the mood for a debate although there is a fundamental mistake in that argument of the bahais: EVERY rasool by definition is also a nabi therefore being the last nabi automatically means also being the last rasool. :)

amateurs... "

Since he is not going to respond to it, just take it for what it is. It's your reading aganist his. And as one of you stated, in the end, you adopt your interpretation as valid as a matter of faith which kinda bring up to related topic.

I read it somewhere that baha'i offer a way to unit different religion. I mean, to get around the problem of future buddah, you interpreted signs symbolically. Then when I poitned out that one can get around the Baha'i restriction of next prophet, you got around by interpretating angel as symbolic entity. But it is quite obvious that if you are doing this kind of *symbolic* interpretation, anyone can come up with any conclusion so in the end, you have to pick up one version out of faith. Then even that you have to problem of interpretating such interpretation which now you take it as cannonical truth.

But if it is all about people accepting your version of faith/interpretation, what is so different from saying Islam will unite humanity if everyone convert to islam? Afterall, some muslim scholars do claim that prophets were sent to every nations, pretty much the same claim as Baha'i. Did i miss anything about Baha'i's claim about uniting humanity? Just that if your project is everyone converting to your idea, I just kinda think it's far fetched? And your world government thingy, I'm not saying it won't happen. EU is a good example but you know, it probably work if everyone can agree to disagree.
 
Unity

Yes, EU is a good example.

I really don't think the establishment of the new era, as I understand it anyway, requires everyone converting to Baha'i. Rather, it is as if Baha'u'llah was given the sight to see the direction of a sort of divine push of humankind in the direction of world civilization. It's exact form is up to humanity to decide, but the Baha'i teachings indicate the basic <principles> that will be need to be generally accepted for humankind to build a unified global community which is based upon justice and the rights of all people, a requisite to real world peace.

I'll just list a few of those that pop immediately to mind:

-- the right of every individual to have his choice in religion, without coercion
-- the expansion of understanding and dialog between religions -- reduction and elimination of fanaticism, suspicion, through the growing recognition of the essential oneness of religious faith
-- universal education and literacy
-- the establishment of procedures and institutions of consultation for problem solving, peacemaking, economic development
-- an international language to be taught alongside the native tongue in every nation
-- an international currency
-- recognition of the rights of workers
-- recognition of the full equality of capacity and rights of women and men
-- that the whole of humankind is but one race, the human race
-- that governments must be responsible to the people (monarchies, democracies, etc are all alright, so long as they reflect the will of the people -- democratic systems are especially praised)
-- international boundaries between nations must be established and agreed upon
-- elimination of the extremes of wealth and poverty (not implying communism, at all. But rather through recognition of the neccessity for and right to just wages, at least some degree of employee stock ownership, moderate taxation of profits, voluntary charity, and systems established to care for the poor and those unable to earn a viable living)
-- an international court and agreed upon laws, necessary means/authority for enforcement of these laws
-- an international consultative body which will have the means and authority to jointly act if a nation arises which threatens the peace and safety of others
-- elimination of slavery

None of these things are to be imposed by compulsion; the course of historical events will drive a sort of global consciousness raising of the fundamental neccessities and rights of the human race and the necessity for global institutions to help ensure these. And none of these things will be established <directly> by the Baha'is or the imposition of Baha'i laws -- Baha'u'llah's words are "The nations of the world must gather together and take counsel between them ..." to establish the laws and systems that are needed.

As you point out, we are already moving towards this, as Baha'u'llah predicted back in the second half of the 1800s. Two areas, especially, are easy to point to: the collapse of imperialism and its replacement by independent, sovereign nations; and, the establishment of much of the equal status of women under the law -- at least in the west, and spreading.

Currently the International Baha'i Community has consultative status as an NGO with many branches of the UN, and it and other Baha'i institutions and individuals are increasingly being called upon to facilitate consultation by various organizations, international businesses, etc. This is a role I expect will grow over the years as more and more Baha'is develop these skills, and more agencies discover their usefulness.

Is this the destined role of the Baha'i Faith for the next 900 or so years? Will most of the world ultimately convert to Baha'i? I don't think any of us know the answers to these questions; only that we are to develop the skills and institutions that will be capable of assisting these processes, and in our lives and deeds, model and promote the unifying principles as best we know how and assist their establishment -- and He has stressed that this is a BIG responsibility on the part of His followers.

Similarly, when Baha'u'llah talks of the unity of religion, it seems to me, anyway, that He is not implying or advocating the elimination of the varieties of religious thought -- tho I personally expect that 1000 years of communication between the followers of different faiths <could> ultimately produce a sort of consensus -- else His principle of "independent investigation of truth" and "unfettered choice of religion" would be rendered rather meaningless. Myself, I see this 1000 year period of establishing "The Most Great Peace" as a stage of transition to an age of maturity of the human race -- perhaps all will, by the end of that period be in fair agreement on basic spiritual truths -- but I don't know, I think that is God's call.

Some of this is going to be a rough haul. There was nothing pretty about WWI and WWII, for instance, or the collapse of the Turkish and British empires, or the wrong-headed and brutal experiments in communism -- but that suffering shook down a good number of old institutions, prejudices, and false ideas that stood as barriers between a still mostly feudal world and the global and cooperative "order" we must ultimately establish to live safely and justly in the future. Baha'ullah indicates that how rough a haul our future will be is in mankind's hands -- the longer we (the whole human race) take to establish these principles, the longer war, injustice and suffering will continue. it's a question of how badly do we have to hurt ourselves before we are really ready to seriously implement what must be done?

As usual, I have rattled on... hope somewhere in all this I have sort of answered your questions!

:)
 
Vapour said:
Just that if your project is everyone converting to your idea, I just kinda think it's far fetched? And your world government thingy, I'm not saying it won't happen. EU is a good example but you know, it probably work if everyone can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Baha'is strongly favor a world government (federated, not totalitarian) that is as close to Baha'u'llah's teachings as possible. However... Baha'u'llah encourages tolerance of other religions in all walks of life. A world government influenced by Baha'i teachings would allow people of any religion to practice their faith as they wished. (Provided, of course, that such practices wouldn't encourage war, terrorism, or severe abuse on an individual level.)

Please keep in mind, Baha'is don't feel that those of other faiths are damned if they don't convert, and they don't feel other religions are a plague to be extinguished.

QG
 
barefootgal9 said:
hope somewhere in all this I have at least sort of answered your questions!
Click to expand...

Ah, you beat me to it with a much more detailed post. :p Nice post, though. :)

QG
 
So the world government is more of prohecy. o.k. Thanks.

As of the different religions uniting under Baha'i interpretation, I don't see it happening.

Baha'i interpretation of other religions appeart to go against core principle of these religion. For example, islam, the prophet mohammed being not the last prophet or, for buddism, idea of monotheism and almighty creator. I mean, if the prophet mohammed wasn't supposed to be the last prohpet, I would assume the god has made that part bit clear by clearly indicating the distinction between two terms. That interpretation just looks too streched.

Accepting such interpretation appear to be no different from converting from one faith to another because it offer no clear way to show that such interpretation is superior than the other numerous interpretation for employing symbolic interpretation.

Why do you think Baha'i's interpretation is better. Is it matter of faith as I have been saying or is there something else?

Oh, and thanks for detailed reply for the last question.
 
Nabi vs Rasul

Truthfully, that distinction argument is one I, too, find a bit difficult. Probably because I really am a poor student of Islam! I find Baha'u'llah's discussion of the essential unity of the Manaifestations -- and Their unity with God -- more assuring.

(from the Kitab-i-Iqan):

71 Notwithstanding the obviousness of this theme, in the eyes of those that have quaffed the wine of knowledge and certitude, yet how many are those who, through failure to understand its meaning, have allowed the term "Seal of the Prophets" to obscure their understanding, and deprive them of the grace of all His manifold bounties! Hath not Muhammad, Himself, declared: "I am all the Prophets?" Hath He not said as We have already mentioned: "I am Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus?" Why should Muhammad, that immortal Beauty, Who hath said: "I am the first Adam" be incapable of saying also: "I am the last Adam"? For even as He regarded Himself to be the "First of the Prophets"--that is Adam--in like manner, the "Seal of the Prophets" is also applicable unto that Divine Beauty. It is admittedly obvious that being the "First of the Prophets," He likewise is their "Seal."

72 The mystery of this theme hath, in this Dispensation, been a sore test unto all mankind. Behold, how many are those who, clinging unto these words, have disbelieved Him Who is their true Revealer. What, We ask, could this people presume the terms "first" and "last"--when referring to God--glorified be His Name!--to mean? If they maintain that these terms bear reference to this material universe, how could it be possible, when the visible order of things is still manifestly existing? Nay, in this instance, by "first" is meant no other than the "last" and by "last" no other than the "first."

73 Even as in the "Beginning that hath no beginnings" the term "last" is truly applicable unto Him who is the Educator of the visible and of the invisible, in like manner, are the terms "first" and "last" applicable unto His Manifestations.

It is also, I think, worth nothing that "Seal" has other connotations than "last" -- Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, and millions of people for probably at least two millenia have placed their seal upon documents to attest to their authenticity. So, to me, Muhammad's title of the "Seal of the Prophets" indicates His affirmation of them.

BTW -- Hi Papist!
 
>Why do you think Baha'i's interpretation is better. Is it matter of faith as I have been saying or is there something else?<

something else (IMO)... God is doing this...

(He's good at stuff we don't have the power to do....)

;-)
 
It is indeed a matter of Faith, though, as is required with any religious and spiritual belief.

As for a world government - I'm not convinced that Baha'is have considered the realities of politics here - but that is a topic I'd like to explore in "Politics and Society".
 
I said:
IAs for a world government - I'm not convinced that Baha'is have considered the realities of politics here - but that is a topic I'd like to explore in "Politics and Society".
Click to expand...

Are you starting a thread there? If so, I will take a look.

I don't think the Baha'is as a whole are naive (some may be, but eventually experience knocks that off) about the realities of politics -- as I suggested, the transition from one condition to another is not expected to be either easy or painless ... or even, neccessarily in a straight line. But yes, we do have faith that we are moving, overall, in the direction of global civilization.

Besides my faith, however, I am mindful that we are talking about a cycle of development to span hundreds, up to 1000+ years. It doesn't seem to me really hard to believe that we are on the threshold of a global era -- however rocky and precarious it may be in my own short lifetime. That's a growing opinion outside the Baha'i Faith as well. When I look at today's world and compare it to 1000 AD I have some confidence that human attitudes can go through substantial -- and even remarkable -- changes in 10-20 lifetimes. And the increasing levels and means of communication, accellerating scientific discoveries, etc. suggest to me that we are very likely transitioning at a much faster pace that at any time in human history.

What, for instance, will be the long-term outcome of the scientific revolution -- which is really, in the span of human existance, very young and only beginning to make its impact felt? What commonly held assumptions may change as it becomes generally known, and ultimately accepted, that within the human genome, no such thing as a "pure race" can be discerned, but what is revealed is that virtually all the genes of humanity have been swapped around and shared for at least 55,000 years?

The expansion of science is only one of myriad factors that are reshaping our perceptions and will continue to do so. Where it will all lead, and how erratic or difficult the path, how much opposition will be mounted against new ideas, or how violent the battles may be (all of these things Baha'u'llah told us we must expect) -- no one can see clearly. (In fact, He stated in one passage that He was forbidden to reveal these things, lest we despair!) But I think the general direction outlined by Baha'u'llah is increasingly confirmed.
 
Vapour, just a little more on:

Vapour said:
So the world government is more of prohecy. o.k. Thanks.

As of the different religions uniting under Baha'i interpretation, I don't see it happening./QUOTE]

I don't know that that will happen. But spouses holding very different viewpoints and opinions can be in a state of unity if they are respectful and loving towards each other, and both can both grow, understand and learn from each other because they are both committed to the goal of a loving relationship. So can religious faiths choose friendship and communication instead of suspicion and enmity. The Baha'i Faith uses the phrase "unity in diversity" -- not the elimination of diversity.

As to Buddhist "non-gods" versus western "Yahweh" or "Allah" --to me, either tradition is speaking of an Unknowablle, Underlying Spiritual Reality. It has never seemed a barrier to me that one tradition speaks of this in abstract terms while the other personifies it. I draw delight and insight from both POVs. I think the more people become familiar with both traditions, the less significant the choices of words and terminologies become. The froth on the waves takes any manner of form, but the Ocean is the same.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top