Baha'i anybody ?

name

Jedi Master
I'm sitting in an internet cafe and dont have much time.

Has anyone here ever paid more attention to the Baha'i ?

I ask because I have found nothing either on SOTT or in the index of the SHOTW book, but they seem to be the latest model of monotheistic religion out there. Will come back when i'm back home.
 
I just read some of the content of their American web site. Their core beliefs read like the outline to a mission statement. They write as a part of their practice:
*avoidance of excessive materialism, partisan politics, backbiting, alcohol, drugs and gambling

No where do they mention avoidance or termination of violence.

They also write in social principals:
*the adoption of a world auxiliary language, a world script, and a uniform and universal system of currency and weights and measures

This smells of NWO type stuff.

There is so much more. Kind of scary looking stuff from a religion stand point.
 
The unfortunate thing about this is the following:

The fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh, the followers of His Faith firmly believe, is that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines, and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society

_http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-4.html
Therefore it is uncritical of the brainwashing functions of the organized religions.
 
I have some more free time in the internet-cafe, will try to use the time to clarify why i posted this in first place. i have been in loose contact with some baha'i since last november, for personal reasons not related to their religion. what piqued my interest is that since then, this very loose personal relation has morphed so that their religion has taken precedence over the other (personal) aspects, which were the reason why i entered into contact with these people first of all. succintly, i have contact with exactly two persons but i've been inundated with marketing material and invitations to their religious festivities. everything is in a very friendly and civil tone, but i couldnt help noticing: the mormons have nuthin' on them re marketing tactics :-)

taking a hint from dr. lobaczewski, you cant understand a religion by what they say, but by understanding who were/are those promoting it, to whom they relate, which are their ultimately purely material interests, what exactly do they DO, and in what context do they operate. because of their relative youth as a religion (164 years IIRC) there might be some success in decoding what is behind them - BTW the mormon sect/religion is of about the same age.

first, i'd suggest anybody interested go to cassiopaedia (or wikipedia) and look at the material about them - enter "bahai" to start looking up material - their founder (who he was and who his friends were). you might as well go to their website, but it is largely devoid of information beyond the shiny prospects from the marketing dept, IMO at least.

second, the tenets of this religion were written down by baha'ullah (mainly) and others. they come from divine inspiration (!), or so we are told. i have no opinion at this time about the contents of their religious texts, i haven't (yet) read any of them.

third, the baha'i are a heavy-duty apostasy to islam. the reason as i understand it is that islam says that mohammed was the last prophet of god on earth, thus being the culmination of divine revelation. baha'ullah said that he is a prophet from god as well: basically god needed to tell humanity something in accordance with the tmes, so he revealed some more divine truth to baha'ullah. the consequences are known: the bahai are persecuted (and often killed) in islamic countries for heresy.

fourth, the baha'i accept all other monoteistic religions and their respective prophets as equally valid sources of divine revelation. could one say "the ring that binds them all" ?

fifth, many iranian jews converted to baha'ism in order to escape persecution (or so the saying is) in persia/iran.

sixth, their main temple is in haifa (currently israel). in the context of the treatment on part of israel of all other religions/peoples, aint it interesting that not only is this tolerated but that the bahai world center in haifa is destination for pilgrimage of baha'is from all over the world ?

seventh et seq, apparently good connections to the PTB in the west, seclusion which goes (IMO, but what do i know) beyond the needs of survival here in western countries.

summa-sumarum we have: revealed divine truths, monoteism++, enough persecution to make up for a good narrative of victimization by the powerful religions of the time of the founders and plant paranoia in their seed communities, moneyed people giving enough to keep up a boutique-style religion for a community of est. 5M worldwide. to me this all looks like more than meets the eye, and more prfound stuff than just "nwo-esque" or the short paragraph quoted by ark. again: could this be "the ring that binds them all", or at least an attempt at it ?

i was wondering if laura has any opinion on this very exotic jewel, the youngest, newest, best model in the succession of monoteistic religions. please see this post/thread as a big question on my part.
 
Ark said:
Therefore it is uncritical of the brainwashing functions of the organized religions.
They can't be critical of brainwashing done by organized religions because, well, if you meet some of them it will become obvious as a sore thumb why they can't.
 
name said:
to me this all looks like more than meets the eye, and more prfound stuff than just "nwo-esque" or the short paragraph quoted by ark.
I think that perhaps the issue here is that, all good disinformation has plenty of profound stuff, and so having lots of truths is by no means an indication of the nature and intention and goals of the source. But regardless of how much "profound stuff" something has, what reveals the nature and purpose of a source is the "not so profound" stuff, osit. Kinda like a psychopath who 99% of the time blends in and acts like the best person ever, but that 1% that shows a crack in the mask can reveal that the other 99% is just an act to deceive the prey. It doesn't mean he's 99% good - he's 100% bad, but 99% of the time fakes it to feed. So I think it's important to look exactly for such things that show that all that profound stuff is just a lure - and I think the paragraph ark quoted is a good example of that. It's not true that all (great?) religions of the world are "divine" in origin. Mostly because there is no such thing as "divine". There is even more nonsense in the non-human realm than in the human, so if by "divine" they mean non-human, they better think twice about their assumptions of what this implies. And the basic principles of all great religions are to a large extent in complete harmony - blind faith, obedience, control, unquestionable doctrines, rituals, etc - and it is these principles that are the problem, osit. And actually their "missions" represent successive stages of spiritual de-evolution of human society, as can be seen from the results of said religions in the world. I personally cannot take someone seriously who "firmly believes" something that is easily shown to be false, and not just false, but extremely dangerous and one of the major ways humanity is kept sleeping.

I'm not against looking into these guys further of course, I just think that if that quote is a representation of their "fundamental principles", it is pretty clear what they are all about. Reminds me of how the New Age stuff is more "sophisticated" than religions and has lots of profound stuff too, but designed to lead astray those who didn't fall for religion. Like those layers Laura talked about - there is a disinfo program for everybody regardless of what "level" of understanding you are on. They go from the most absurd to very sophisticated and plausible, come in all flavors and colors of the rainbow.
 
For example,

There are a few profound things that sound very much esoteric and true:
In contrast to a number of other religious doctrines and philosophies, the Bahá'í Faith does not teach that the physical desires of human beings are "evil" or "bad." Everything in God's creation is regarded as essentially and fundamentally good. In fact, the very purpose of the human body and its physical faculties is to serve as a proper vehicle for the development of the soul . As the energies of the body are gradually brought under the conscious control of the soul, they become instruments for the expression of spiritual qualities. It is only undisciplined physical passions that become causes of harm, and hinder spiritual progress.
All there is is lessons, and good and evil are subjective, and we are very mechanical which is what hinders our spiritual evolution, which is the evolution of our consciousness. We need to discipline our Being through conscious control and understanding of our actions. The "catch" is in what they mean by discipline - they actually mean by unquestionably obeying what is written in their holy books as holy truth (as will be apparent in a second).
The theme of growth through struggle and suffering occurs at several places in the Bahá'í writings. Although many of our sufferings result from careless living and are therefore potentially avoidable, a certain amount of suffering is necessary in any growth process.
Yes, conscious suffering, wow how true! Some suffering is due to our own stubbornness to learn lessons and avoidable if we learn the lessons in different ways, some is a requirement for spiritual progress and unavoidable. But...

There are things that are also very obviously manipulations and extremely dangerous - in fact, so dangerous, they block all progress and do the exact opposite of what is claimed, undoing any and all potential benefit of the above truths. These things can be rationalized and completely missed by someone "enchanted" after contemplating the above truths, and go on to read the rest uncritically, with the assumption that either the rest will also be true, or if it looks wrong it's only because you the reader are just not "advanced enough" to grok it so it's your fault, and the wise source certainly knows better! Unfortunately, all disinfo uses exactly that technique, and works the same way.
Of course, only those who live during the time of a Manifestation have the opportunity of observing Him directly. It is for this reason, Bahá'u'lláh explained, that the essential connection between the individual and God is maintained through the writings and words of each Manifestation. For Bahá'ís, the word of the Manifestation is the Word of God, and it is to this Word that the individual can turn in his or her daily life in order to grow closer to God and to acquire a deeper knowledge of Him. The written Word of God is the instrument that creates a consciousness of God's presence in one's daily life.
Translation: Only a special few who happen to live at the right time get to see God's true manifestation - and it is God's true manifestation because it declares itself as such, and we're telling you now that that's what it is - I mean, what other reason do you need? So being what it is, it will produce some "holy writings" for you to read and follow. By reading those writings you come closer to God, because as we already told you and therefore you already "know", they are the word of God. How can anything other than the word of God produce such truths like the above? If this logic leaves you kinda confused it's because you're just in need of some more holy writings to read, so go read'em!!
It is for this reason that the discipline of daily prayer, meditation, and study of the holy writings constitutes an important part of the individual spiritual practice of Bahá'ís. They feel that this discipline is one of the most important ways of growing closer to their Creator.
Again, it is not by reading and studying those things that you discern to be true through a lot of study, research, critical thought, and constantly questioning approach and an open and critical mind. It is by reading what WE designate as true and holy, because we of course know better than you, because we have "connections". And you grow closer to God by reading what we designate as holy. Any questions? No, you can't have our connections, so bugger off and go read the holy stuff already!!!
To summarize: the Bahá'í view of God is that His essence is eternally transcendent, but that His attributes and qualities are completely immanent in the Manifestations.9 Since our knowledge of anything is limited to our knowledge of the perceptible attributes of that thing, knowledge of the Manifestations is (for ordinary humans) equivalent to knowledge of God.10 In practical terms, this knowledge is gained through study, prayer, meditation, and practical application based on the revealed Word of God (i.e., the sacred scriptures of the Manifestations).
The books we tell you are Holy contain ALL you need to know about God - it's all contained in there, it's your holy source of truth - get it? Got it? Good. Since our knowledge of anything is limited to what we can perceive in it, it then logically follows that studying the books we designate as Holy is like studying God. And if that makes absolutely no sense, it is because it is divine logic that is just way over your head, but maybe if you read enough of our holy books, it will begin to make sense. Our "connections" are telling us that you also get to have god sparks if you read enough of our literature, and dude, those are off da hook, and the kids love'em, so I mean it's just a good time all around mmkay?

Indeed, the essential reason for such widespread unhappiness and terrible social conflict and crises in the world today is that humankind has turned away from true religion and spiritual principles.
And if you think we're maybe talking about truth, love, and understanding, hahahahaha.. no. We mean the principles we declare as true, and our religion. Oh yeah and humankind did it all by themselves cuz they're just confused, it was not actually a global manipulation by people like ourselves or anything, so don't get any ideas.

The only salvation in any age, Bahá'ís believe, is to turn again towards God, to accept his Manifestation for that day, and to follow his teachings.
And if you think by God we mean the objective reality of all things, which of course is the only reasonable definition of God - hahahahaha.. NO!! We mean especifically the books and manifestations that WE declare as teachings of God. How come we seem to always know when something is Godly and when it isn't? Well it's definitely not from years of critical study and research, just in case you were wondering, our "connections" told us what the truth is, and so by extension, we are YOUR connection to that same holy truth, do you understand child? Your confused look only proves how undeveloped your soul is due to not reading enough manifestations.

Bahá'u'lláh pointed out that, if we reflect deeply on the conditions of our existence, we must eventually realize and admit to ourselves that, in absolute terms, we possess nothing. Everything we are or have--our physical body and our rational soul--all comes from our Creator. Since God has freely given us so much, we have, in turn, an obligation to God.
He scratches your back, you scratch his. Capiche?
In another passage, Bahá'u'lláh reminded his followers that the duties which God has given to us are only for our benefit: God Himself has no need of our worship or allegiance, for God is entirely self-sufficient and independent of all His creation. We can therefore be certain that everything God does is motivated uniquely by His pure love for us. There is no "self-interest" on the part of God:
Umm... yes, so out of his love for you, he has some requirements, and he sent us to remind you and extract it from you. No no no it's nothing like the Mafia. It's just a few simple things:
Bahá'u'lláh stated that human beings have two basic duties towards God:
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation [i.e. the Manifestation]
If you think that means recognizing the truth in a big pile of lies, if you think it means recognizing those who are truly on the path of enlightenment by looking and listening and seeking the truth yourself through a lot of hard work and looking at ALL different sources very carefully and critically, you're WRONG buttercheeks. It means WE tell you who that is, but let's just call it "recognition" because we're doing the "cognition" and by telling you what the truth is, you're doing "re-cognition" of our cognition. It's perfectly logical!!! So you re-cognize who speaks the word of God by listening to us as we have already cognized it!

.... It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other.
Oh yeah and once you "re-cognize" who those people are (if you forget, let us know, we'll remind you), obey their holy words and writings. In other words, you just do what we say and you'll be closer to God, who as we already told you, needs absolutely nothing from you and gives you total free will. It is perfectly logical, it's not our fault you're too stupid to get it..

In another passage, Bahá'u'lláh reminded his followers that the duties which God has given to us are only for our benefit: God Himself has no need of our worship or allegiance, for God is entirely self-sufficient and independent of all His creation. We can therefore be certain that everything God does is motivated uniquely by His pure love for us. There is no "self-interest" on the part of God:
Whatever duty Thou [God] hast prescribed unto Thy servants of extolling to the utmost Thy majesty and glory is but a token of Thy grace unto them, that they may be enabled to ascend unto the station conferred upon their own inmost being, the station of the knowledge of their own selves.
It's all for your own good. God would never do or ask anything that wasn't. And yes, as we already said, our material is in fact from God, so it is therefore for your own good. And you do know that "know thyself" is one of the most ancient and wise teachings, right? And what better way to know yourself than by reading the works we designate as "holy" and "from God"? Just cuz you don't SEE that it is from God doesn't mean it isn't, you're just not advanced enough to recognize it. And if you think the solution to this problem is a lot of thinking, elimination of beliefs and sacred cows, learning to think with a hammer, research, and networking, hahahahahaha NO. We've already done that for you, spared you all that conscious suffering we were telling you is necessary, so that you don't have to suffer so actually we take that back it's not necessary at all. All you have to do is read, memorize, and obey. Oh yes, also deeply reflect on what you read. You will either recognize the truth of it, or you won't understand it yet. But of course it is still true, you just need to advance yourself before you get some of it.

Besides the obvious obedience/blind faith doctrine, they seriously ignore/downplay the manipulation of mankind and ascribe it to just general confusion and all our fault. And the answer is, as with all disinfo, through them and their teachings. Of course by using words like "realize" and "recognize" they try to create the impression that it isn't "believe" and "obey". They mix in esoteric truths, but also separate God from creation completely. Their argument is that since everything could not have come out of nothing, only God must've created all things out of nothingness. This totally ignores the question of where this God came from - did he also need another God to make him out of nothingness? If not, why does creation need him to do it for us? If he can come out of nothing without any help, so can we. If he is eternal, there is no reason why we cannot be as well, and therefore the purpose of a "creator" is completely unnecessary. But the bottom line is, all this profound stuff they "teach" cannot benefit the "followers" because the main idea of obedience and blind faith completely contradicts the notions of growing our soul and "impeccability" that comes from this, which is a result of seeing objective reality - which can NEVER come from believing anything, and seeking all your answers from some source that claims to have them all. And they expect their followers to not make this connection. Maybe a good thing to look into would be - who is in charge? Who originated this, and who is "on first" in this religion? Is there a particular group that we might already be familiar with that is responsible? You mentioned Israel, so maybe that's one string to pull...
 
name said:
taking a hint from dr. lobaczewski, you cant understand a religion by what they say
Why not? What if what they say is verifiable nonsense?
name said:
could this be "the ring that binds them all", or at least an attempt at it ?
This idea about instituting a "one world government" seems more involved than all those NWO proponents think. Usually the idea is that they just want to control us all, which is why they're doing it. However, the reality of having many countries has done so for thousands of years, it is intentional and should not be casually dismissed. The PTB separated humanity into chunks with their own religions and languages, which creates constant warfare and global suffering with seemingly no way out. It interferes with networking because of such big physical separations of these chunks, different languages, enemy religions, etc. It vectors attention towards unimportant matters, keeping everybody preoccupied with their own politics, religions, and inner-chunk issues, and constantly having to deal with hostile chunks and at times being hostile ourselves and if lucky taking over a bunch of other chunks etc. So why would the PTB, after having maintained such strict reality of separating humanity in to chunks for thousands of years to feed the 4th density suddenly choose to unite all these chunks under one umbrella, why now?

Because of this strict adherence to global separation and the various religious and nationalistic/patriotic (not to mention language-based) conditioning created to maintain it, it makes people generally very resistant to just eliminate national and religious lines and just "merge" everybody together. So if separation has benefited the PTB for thousands of years, why would global "unification" (the NWO idea) be beneficial for the PTB now all of a sudden, the direct opposite of what they've always done? This is the most important point of it all I think because if it it was just "to control us", that system is already in place. So something must be different NOW than it has been for thousands of years, there must be a good reason why this age-old strategy of the PTB is suddenly being changed. And it is the likes of Alex Jones that focus on the fact that the government wants to establish one-world NWO, and completely neglects to ask the most important question: Why? Why now? I honestly doubt this religion will be the thing to do it, but it sure is being used as many others to plant the idea that it's a "good idea", in order to make less people resist the ultimate "unification", regardless of what form it actually takes.

But ultimately we are food, and so they need us to keep fighting bloody wars and always suffering en masse. Separating us and pitting us against one another as nations was a successful strategy to achieve this. But if we're all united under one rule, who are we going to fight in order to keep the cash flow for the lower PTB and the negative energy for the higher ones? It seems that this is exactly what they're creating right now. One such enemy has already been created: global terrorism. This is a nationless enemy that can be maintained even without nations or religions (though temporarily they are using Islam, it is not hard to just make them religionless crazy maniacs too if needed). Another such "enemy" is the idea of "resource wars" (peak oil etc). So now we have at least 2 things to supposedly "deal with". They might be enough, if aggressively used, to institute a "necessary" one-world-government. But that strategy seems to be only temporary. Already there are plenty of reports and evidence that terrorism is being faked by alphabet groups like CIA, MI5, Mossad, etc. So in case of a one world government, if terrorism is all they have to rely on, it is rather shaky ground because if the population ever discovers that it is being faked (and this is going to be impossible to completely hide all the evidence, because there is PLENTY of it already and more comes every day), the whole global empire can potentially be overthrown from within. But there is no replacement, once terrorism is all spent, they would need to either come up with a new boogie man (kinda hard with extremely skeptical population at that time though), or the PTB faces serious dilemma about how to keep their power, how to keep the fear, what to use. When you have nations there's always some "crazy tyrant" that can try to invade and/or take over the world, this can happen as often as necessary to keep the wars going. But once terrorism is "revealed for what it is", and there are no "nations" anymore, what are the PTB to do?

I think this is evidence that this strategy is only temporary, it is designed to work only "long enough" to hold us over until something else. The strategy of keeping the world divided into nations worked for thousands of years, and it is not failing by any means. So changing it now to a strategy that, while has a lot more control over the population in the short term, also risks losing everything once its only means of control is removed, seems to be a very brief emergency measure. But what is the emergency that prompts the PTB to suddenly drop a completely stable strategy that worked for thousands of years in favor of one that depends on keeping its only "fuel" completely secret or else the whole system of control is compromised? That is of course explained on the SOTT and Cass pages as the coming global cataclysms due to cometary bombardments, and potentially the hyperdimensional "realm border crossing wave" together with it.

Also, any religion that is instituted globally I think would not work for too long because as it stands now, many people are on many levels of understanding and need disinfo that caters specifically for their level. One does not fit all, which is why there is so much variety to make sure as many people as possible are trapped. That's why I don't think that a single religion would be globally imposed, I think the changes will probably be more political than religious and all the religions and philosophical groups and new age groups will be used to promote the idea, because they've all been infiltrated and ponerized and all the followers will be told, in the context of their individual religion, that this change is for their benefit. Just some thoughts.
 
name said:
I have some more free time in the internet-cafe, will try to use the time to clarify why i posted this in first place. i have been in loose contact with some baha'i since last november, for personal reasons not related to their religion. what piqued my interest is that since then, this very loose personal relation has morphed so that their religion has taken precedence over the other (personal) aspects, which were the reason why i entered into contact with these people first of all. succintly, i have contact with exactly two persons but i've been inundated with marketing material and invitations to their religious festivities. everything is in a very friendly and civil tone, but i couldnt help noticing: the mormons have nuthin' on them re marketing tactics :-)
Interesting - they are trying to 'recruit' you. I guess they do this in the same way that any other religion or 'cult' recruits its members - by offering them something a person wants or needs and then saying that the religion bit is 'part of the deal'. In other words, people have to accept the control system (whatever religious dogma goes along with the religion in quesiton ) in order to get acceptance or fullfillment of whatever other human needs they may have.

This 'morphing' isn't unusual, in fact its probably quite usual...this is how any religion 'recruits' people to a particular control system.
 
I visited the Ba'hai temple in Chicago when we visited last year. Their visitor center was very informative, and they have beautiful teachings!!!

I myself am a member of Self Realization Fellowship, founded by Paramahansa Yogananda. I noticed that their teachings are very similar to what we believe in as well. It's refreshing to hear, and know about religions such as the Ba'hai faith which are so very tolerant of others.

We are in a new age in which traditional/literal interpretations are no longer as appealing to the masses. We need to study the essential triths that we share between all world faiths, instead of trying to convince the rest of the world that our personal paths are "exclusive"!
 
I think you need to look at what the purpose of these forums are before you post anything else. In the meantime, just know that these forums are NOT about the promotion of ANY religion, no matter how "beautiful" their teachings appear to be on the surface.
 
Baha'i Apologetics

After examining the thread on the Baha'i Faith, I thought the following would be a stimulus to readers:
________________
Apologetics3

Apologetics is a branch of systematic theology, although some experience it’s thrust in religious studies or philosophy of religion courses. Some encounter it on the internet for the first time in a more populist and usually much less academic form. As I see it, apologetics is primarily concerned with the protection of a position, the refutation of that position's assailants and, in the larger sense, the exploration of that position in the context of prevailing philosophies and standards in a secular society or, indeed, a religious society. Apologetics, to put it slightly differently, is concerned with answering critical inquiries, criticism of a position, in a rational manner. Apologetics is not possible, it seems to me anyway, without a commitment to and a desire to defend a position. Naturally in life, one takes a position on all sorts of topics, subjects, religions and philosophies.

With that said, though, the activity I engage in, namely, apologetics, is a never ending exercise. The apologetics that concerns me is not so much Christian apologetics or one of a variety of what might be called secular apologetics, but Baha'i apologetics. There are many points of comparison and contrast, though, which I won't go into here. Christians will have the opportunity to defend Christianity by the use of apologetics; secular humanists can argue their cases if they so desire here. And I will in turn defend the Baha'i Faith by the use of apologetics. In the process we will both, hopefully, learn something about our respective Faiths, our religions, our various and our multitudinous positions, some of which we hold to our hearts dearly and some of which are of little interest.

At the outset, then, in this my first posting, my intention is simply to make this start, to state what you might call "my apologetics position." This brief statement indicates, in broad outline, where I am coming from in the weeks and months ahead. -Ron Price with thanks to Udo Schaefer, "Baha'i Apologetics?" Baha'i Studies Review, Vol. 10, 2001/2002.________________________________

I want in this second part of my first posting to finish, as best I can, outlining a basic orientation to Baha’i apologetics. Critical scholarly contributions or criticism raised in public or private discussions, an obvious part of apologetics, should not necessarily be equated with hostility. Often questions are perfectly legitimate aspects of a person's search for an answer to an intellectual conundrum. Paul Tillich once expressed the view that apologetics was an "answering theology."(Systematic Theology, U. of Chicago, 1967, Vol.1, p6.)

I have always been attracted to the founder of the Baha'i Faith's exhortations in discussion to "speak with words as mild as milk," with "the utmost lenience and forbearance." I am also aware that, in cases of rude or hostile attack, rebuttal with a harsher tone may well be justified. It does not help an apologist to belong to those "watchmen" the prophet Isaiah calls "dumb dogs that cannot bark."(Isaiah, 56:10)

In its essence apologetics is a kind of confrontation, an act of revealing one's true colours, of hoisting the flag, of demonstrating essential characteristics of one's faith, of one's thought, of one's emotional and intellectual stance in life. Dialogue, as Hans Kung puts it, "does not mean self-denial;" but the standard of public discussion of controversial topics should be sensitive to what is said and how. Not everything that we know should always be disclosed; to put this another way, we don't want all our dirty laundry out on our front lawn for all to see or our secrets blasted over the radio and TV.

I want to thank Udo Schaefer, "Baha'i Apologetics," Baha'i Studies Review, Vol.10, 2001/2) for some of what I write here. Schaefer goes on discussing one's views one's faith which he says "should not be opportunistically streamlined, adapting to current trends, thus concealing their real features, features that could provoke rejection in order to be acceptable for dialogue." To do this puts one in the danger of losing one's identity.

It is almost impossible to carry the torch of truth through a crowd without getting someone's beard singed. In the weeks and months that follow, my postings will probably wind up singing the beards of some readers and, perhaps, my own in the process. Such are the perils of dialogue, of apologetics. Much of Baha'i apologetics derives from the experience Baha'is have of a fundamental discrepancy between secular thought and the Baha'i teachings on the other. In some ways, the gulf is unbridgeable but, so too, is this the case between the secular and much thought in the Christian or Islamic religion or, for that matter, between variants of Christianity or secular thought itself. That is why, or at least one of the reasons, I have chosen to make postings at this forum-this forum invites dialogue.

Anyway, that's all for now. It's back to the autumn winds of Tasmania, about 3 kms from the Bass Straight on the Tamar River. The geography of place is so much simpler than that of the spiritual geography readers at this site are concerned with, although even physical geography has its complexities. Whom the gods would destroy they first make simple and simpler and simpler. I look forward to a dialogue with someone. Here in far-off Tasmania--the last stop before Antarctica, if one wants to get there through some other route than off the end of South America--your posts on this forum will be gratefully received. -Ron Price, Tasmania, Australia.
 
Baha'i Apologetics

RonPrice said:
Apologetics, to put it slightly differently, is concerned with answering critical inquiries, criticism of a position, in a rational manner.
Sounds reasonable to me.

RonPrice said:
Apologetics is not possible, it seems to me anyway, without a commitment to and a desire to defend a position.
That's not a good idea if they are seeking truth. The desire to defend a position can overide one's critical thinking when new data contradicts their beliefs.

RP said:
Naturally in life, one takes a position on all sorts of topics, subjects, religions and philosophies.
Yes. But if that position isn't based on solid ground and backed up by critical data it's useless.

RP said:
With that said, though, the activity I engage in, namely, apologetics, is a never ending exercise. The apologetics that concerns me is not so much Christian apologetics or one of a variety of what might be called secular apologetics, but Baha'i apologetics.
So it's apologetics then.

RP said:
There are many points of comparison and contrast, though, which I won't go into here. Christians will have the opportunity to defend Christianity by the use of apologetics; secular humanists can argue their cases if they so desire here. And I will in turn defend the Baha'i Faith by the use of apologetics.
So if you come across data that refutes Baha'i Faith you're going to apologise but continue in your belief?

RP said:
In the process we will both, hopefully, learn something about our respective Faiths, our religions, our various and our multitudinous positions, some of which we hold to our hearts dearly and some of which are of little interest.
If what you mean by faith, is blind belief, you won't find much of that here.

RP said:
At the outset, then, in this my first posting, my intention is simply to make this start, to state what you might call "my apologetics position." This brief statement indicates, in broad outline, where I am coming from in the weeks and months ahead.
I think you'll find that in this forum, rather than people defending their position, it's a forum for data analasis and discusion to find the truth, and not to defend blind beliefs.
 
Baha'i Apologetics

Ron,

I started that thread because the Bahai called my attention for various reasons, enumerated in my postings there. CONTENT was not really a reason for my interest in the sect - I refer you to Ark's post in that thread.

As for CONTENT, not only of the Baha'i but of any religion, a recurring theme here is that religions are ideologies, and that ideologies do ALWAYS have the purpose of serving as a cover and enabler for the activities of psychopaths and other deviants.

As for the saying which you quote, it actually says "Those who the gods would destroy they first turn mad".

Take care of your beard, be aware of what it is actually that you are "carrying through the crowd", and welcome.
 
Re: Baha'i Apologetics

name said:
Ron,

I started that thread because the Bahai called my attention for various reasons, enumerated in my postings there. CONTENT was not really a reason for my interest in the sect - I refer you to Ark's post in that thread.

As for CONTENT, not only of the Baha'i but of any religion, a recurring theme here is that religions are ideologies, and that ideologies do ALWAYS have the purpose of serving as a cover and enabler for the activities of psychopaths and other deviants.

As for the saying which you quote, it actually says "Those who the gods would destroy they first turn mad".

Take care of your beard, be aware of what it is actually that you are "carrying through the crowd", and welcome.

This thread has finally found my attention. I was a Bahai for around 17 years and have two children to a Bahai marriage(divorced)
I was originally struck by the beauty of Baha'u'llah's language and the inclusive nature of its teachings but..

There is a small matter regarding their principle of equality of the sexes. This was expounded by Baha'u'llah along with independant investigation of truth. But these two principals have been since burried, in that woman cannot serve on thier Universal House of Justice and that in order to join the Bahai Faith as promulgated by Shoghi Effendi, one must declare unquestioned loyalty to Effendi's and the Universal House of Justice's writ. (what happened to equality of the sexes and the independant investigation of truth?)

Now it is interesting from a ponerogenesis point of view that the succession of Baha'u'llahs authority was placed in the hands of his two oldest sons, one of which (Abdul Baha) went on to exclude his brother and fellow leader from any authority in contravention of Baha'u'llah's will and testement. Not only that, but when Abdul Baha died there was a contentious will and testement produced which those Bahais would not allow to be verified and in which fact a copy was declared by a hand writing expert of the day to be a fraud. This will and testement said to be Abdul Baha's is also written in EXACTLY the style of Shoghi Efffendi's later works so it seems the will was also written by Efffendi and guess what - it named Effendi as the successor. Funny that. The fact of Baha'u'llahs will specifies the succession to go to Abdul Baha's brother. But guess what? That brother was cast out penniless along with his long suffering family and shunned by the remaining Bahais. This is bloody horrible but not surprising, due to the obvious psychopathological environment the whole family was subjected to by persecution, violence and incarceration.

I think, the Bahai faith is an excellent example of ponerogenesis and has all the hallmarks of STS involvement. Further, there are at least 4, perhaps 5 existant sects of this recent monothesitic religion: The Bahai Faith centered in Haifa, The Orthodox Bahai's in Wilmette USA, the Unitarian Bahai's (www), the Reform Bahai's(www) and also the Free Bahais(www). Its a bloody mess, but a real study in ponerology if that is your taste.

Just over the last few weeks or so I have been relooking at this Bahai question to free myself of residual circuits regarding it. What I have now seen is a beautiful but extreemly hypnotic word salad that makes no mention of anything to do with psychopathology or the need for self remembering. Why is that I ask, in view of Baha'u'llah's station of divinity (Manifestation of God), and the extreem importance of seeing our psychological circuitry in order to be alive in the truest sense.

As usual for this kind of mind control, the emphasis is on acting out the teachings in blind belief, and although Baha'u'llah does kind of mention in passing that one must develop perception, there seems to be no "inner teaching" that seeks to develop this fundamental aspect of ones spiritual health.

Thanks to all of you for discussing this. If I had read it before now I could have saved myself some work, but then, it was important for me to come to my own understanding.

One thing that remains to bother me, is the thing about the the Sufi Path of Knowledge. This bothers me because it is grounded in the Koran, which is another of these contentious monotheistic devices. I have found Al Arabi's Sufi Path of Knowledge(William Chittock) to be very enlightening once one removes the religious gloss, and it suggests to me that it was a device to circumvent the effect of monotheism - my understanding is very low at this stage, but is it possible that the Sufi path which seems to have branched out of the Koran at its inception, is a STO influence? Another thread perhaps.

Because of the unlikelyhood that I will ever seek out this thread again, if someone does post another thought or two, please send me a message and I will come back to it. Thinking like a hammer :cool2:
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom