radicalspirit

Greetings Fellow Spirits!

I have recently stumbled across some observations between the history of Christianity and the progression of Baha'i's. Have you observed any common patterns between the personalities and attitudes of people of the Baha'i faith and people of the Christian faith? If you haven't, please think about this and share your observations. Specifically ... what do you feel are the stigmas (if any) surrounding Christians? What stigmas (if any) are developing about Baha'i's today?

Thank you for your thoughts

tonyfish58

I am wondering if you are aware of the "Theory of Highlighting"

Tablet of the Universe - by Abdu'l-Baha

The above link may interest you

Cheers Tony

Yeshua

You might be interested in this tablet by Abdu’l-Baha , in which he responds to questions “concerning the wisdom of referring some important laws to the House of Justice.” Abdu’l-Baha replies that, in principle, the Baha’i Faith is similar to Christianity, whose scriptures also specify only a few laws.

He writes:

Sen McGlinn

I take it that your question is about parallels between anti-Christian and anti-Bahai polemics, at similar stages of development?

My first thought it that what Schleiermacher called the "cultured despisers" of Christianity were around in the first centuries of Christianity too. How could this obscure sect from an out of way place with bizarre beliefs about a crucified criminal, and no understanding of platonism at all, ever be of any significance? Well, they made it, not by getting educated and philosophical, or revising their bizarre beliefs to something more rational, but rather, as Rodney Stark shows, by changing the world one heart at a time, by being there to nurse the sick when the plague raged, by opening their doors to the socially excluded, in short, by Love. And the cultured despisers of Schleiermacher's time are gone to dust too, and their ideologies have proven bankrupt.

The parallel in Bahai history is the othering of the Bahais by generations of Iranian intellectuals, who in each generation find different reasons to sneer at the potential of the Bahais to change Iranian society. One generation says the Babis are dangerous communist revolutionaries, another that they are heroic revolutionaries but the bad bad Bahais are antirevolutionary. Hamid Dabashi is an example of the latter (see his article The End of Islamic Ideology):

Elsewhere he talks of the Bahai Faith as “a pathological universalism,” a “jaundiced reactionary religion.” The above is full of errors (he claims that Baha’u’llah, who died in 1892, posthumously supported Mohammad Ali Shah, whose reign only begins in 1896, and at the same time supported the British and the Russians – these three being the main competing centres of political power in early 20th century Iran), but its approach is also fundamentally wrong: it starts with an ideologically determined idea of how, he hopes, the world can be transformed; perverts Babism to fit his picture; and then blames Bahais for not supporting his approach. It's an intellectually worthless method: one must first approach history through unbiased observation, and only after that form conclusions about historical dynamics, what can bring change and what is an illusory hope.

Another parallel that comes to mind is that the early Christians, and early Babis and Bahais, were accused of communism and community of wives, of immorality, etc.. This is true of most new religions, in all periods.

Another is that early Christians were seen as a threat to the state, or an alternative state (Justin Martyr refutes this), and the same accusations are made against the Babis and Bahais (see Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament for a refutation).

One non-parallel is that the Bahais have been accused of being unpatriotic, which was not a relevant category in Roman times. That's because the Babi-Bahai religion arose in the era of nationalisms. A Marxist critique of the Bahai Faith (I think it was the Soviet Encyclopaedia) said the Bahais were servants of the capitalist classes etc... in short, were not communists, therefore bad.

Yeshua

You are spot on! Pagan writers often mocked the Christian "Agape" (Love-Feast), the ceremony whereby Christians gathered in each others' houses and celebrated the Eucharist with a "holy kiss". The Romans were horrified by the idea of men and women kissing each other in public, so they assumed (thinking naturally instead of spiritually) that the Christians were libertines! There were rumors of orgies: a misunderstanding of the Agape Feast, which led to a lot of local attacks and persecutions of Christians throughout the Empire. By the mid-2nd century, mobs could be found willing to throw stones at Christians, and they might be mobilized by rival sects. The Persecution in Lyon was preceded by mob violence, including assaults, robberies and stonings (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.1.7).

Afterall it was a religion whose main ceremony revolved aroud "bread and wine" - that was said to represent the blood and wine of a crucified Roman criminal ie to Roman minds tantamount to cannibalism - and "holy kisses" and "songs of praise", so one can faintly understand why it would have appalled Roman civility and sensibilities.

Also because Christians worshipped One God and not many pagan idols, and believed that this God was "unseen" and pure siprit, they were accused of the criminal charge of "atheism".

Read:

Christian gatherings were similar to modern Baha'i "Fire-sides". As in modern day Iran Christians had to conduct their religious gatherings in secrecy...they even used a fish symbol, which in Greek represented Jesus' name, to let other Christians know they too were "secret believers"...

Eusebius tells us:



Christianity was considered to be a "pernicious cult". Cornelius Tacitus is considered the greatest historian of Imperial Rome. Michael Green explains:



Tacitus, with a charming mindset, describes how Romans in the first century viewed the Early Christian emphasis on "Love":



In addition, their neighbors sometimes suspected the Christians of illegal activities. Such suspicions and disdain for Christians are reflected in the oft-quoted remarks of the Roman writer Tacitus, who said they were “loathed for their vices” and were guilty of “hatred of the human race” (Annals 15.44).

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: NERO, “VI. Nero and Christianity writes:





Their execution (in a circus on the Vatican hill, where Nero's family possessed a villa and a park) was a kind of comic relief to the badly hit Romans. There were many victims - both Tacitus and a very ancient Christian document, the First letter of Clement 6.1, mentions 'an immense multitude'.

Tacitus' remark that 'they were covered with the skins of beasts and torn by dogs' suggests that several Christians were the unwilling actors in a mythological tableau vivant: the death of Actaeon, a legendary hunter who was devoured by his own dogs. In the First letter of Clement, we also read about women being tortured as if they were the mythological Danaids or the legendary criminal Dirce (6.2). The climax of these cruel shows was the mockery of the crucifixion of Christ: according to a second-century tradition, the Christian leader Peter was crucified upside down.

cire perdue

If you have not read Rodney Stark's THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY then you are in for a treat. I have read it about 5 times if not 6. It is a beautiful work.

arthra

Thanks for your post..

For a long time I've been aware of parallels between early Christianity and the early history of the Baha'i Faith..

Both had periods of persecution..martyrdom was a value in early Christianity as well as our own history.

Repression from established religious authorities and attacks were common..

We Baha'is are just emerging from an age of persecution which still continues in Iran..

In my view the Baha'i Faith also has a perspective that looks to the future over the next centuries toward building the foundations of a world civilization and currently it seems to me many Christians see it in the opposite light..that is, a united world is more often feared .. so it seems there is more fear and anxiety among Christians about what the future holds.

Iconodule

I see little commonalities, in practice and in faith, Perhaps in circumstance but little else. The Desciples and early Christians held to Christ Crucified and him ressurected, God incarnate whereas the bahais dont. While they were both persecuted. As for stigmas, the bahais are (when they debate or argue) intellectually dishonest, and the Christians are sinful.

Nuck81

As someone with a Christian background the fact that Baha'i Faith so blatantly spells out that they want to unite the World under one religion and government was a huge warning flag to me.

Then I thought to myself, Christianities goal is for everyone to become a Christian, and Christians pray every day for world peace and unity, so what's the difference?

Iconodule- I'm new here, so there is probably some tragic Lex Luthor-esque backstory for your aggression, disrespect and pretentiousness which I am unaware, but I have to say, you're demeanor makes it very hard to take you seriously.

Iconodule

The difference is the bahai don't care so much about the actual truth and are willing to let anyone commune with them so long as they agree with two types of doctrines. But I will agree, I am pretentious and make no excuses for what I just said.

LordOfGoblins

lol Bahais dont care about the truth even though one of our principles is "independant investigation of the truth". What you probbaly mean is we dont care so much for spoon-fed truth.

Iconodule

No I don't think bahais care about truth. I have had bahais tell me over and over again you only need to believe in God and Mirza Husayn to be a bahai. Ultimately its very subjective whjat the bahai believes because he or she can never be condemned so long as they keep their understanding private. So no, I dont think the bahais care for truth. INdependant investigation? That really helped the protestants, not... I have had bahais say AMEN to an explicit prayer about Jesus as God. So dont think I just make this up. I dont.

radicalspirit

Haha. Thanks for that Tony. Like many other concepts, I have been aware and have applied such things as "Highlighting" However, I have not been keeping up with the terminology.

Mucho gratzi senior.

radicalspirit

Yeshua and Sen McGlinn,

Thank you for your abundant amount of historical knowledge and references. Your styles of writing are very academic and seemingly mature.

I must have mis-communicated my question. I am wondering if people see any similarities between the way Baha'is and Christians behave towards others. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly?? I am aware of the stereotypes people have of Christians (i.e. as consequences of fire and brimstone proselytizing tactics or a sense of arrogance due to their strong belief in their faith) ... and I am wondering if people see any stereotypes developing about Baha'is as well ...

radicalspirit

Arthra, that is an interesting idea I have never thought about. After some deliberation with myself, I am not sure if Christians feel fear or anxiety about what the future holds. To me, I think Christians are grateful to have heard of God's word and will continue to spread the good news until the Jesus returns. But I will have to ask Christians about this...

Any Christians here, feel free to chime in.

radicalspirit

Peace and Unity. That is a goal many of us have. The difference is how we go about doing things. You said [some] Christians pray every day for it. Some Baha'is (as well as many other faiths), on the other hand, are acting on it. So I feel that the goal is the same, it's about how people go on about achieving the goal that is different.

I am new here too, so "Welcome Sir!" And as for Iconodule. I personally think he is coming from an interesting perspective, and I am sure he has a story to tell about how he's been shaped to the way he is today. Hopefully, we will find out more about his (intriguing) character.

LordOfGoblins

Ok so we can never be conmdemed for what we believe if we keep it private and thus we dont care for truth.
Two people will rarely see the same thing the same way. My proof if this is the fact that the one eternal truth of the Christian religion has become very very divded into many many offshoots espousing different interpretations. This is human variation. Now Bahai remain united because it is important to remain under a single banner. Your notions about the fact we dont believe in truth because we respect peoples right to have a private understanding of a spiritual writing are truly bizzare Most people would take your explanation to show that the truth and undestandings is not censured and this is a good thing but you see it as a negative thing and use it as a means to attack the faith. That is some talent you have.

tonyfish58

I am sure you will find out about that intriguing Character

You have posed an interesting question - I would think the most common pattern between people with strong Faiths is that you will stick to your guns no matter what

I do not think we are exempt from that, but I might add I do feel that Baha'i guns have been loaded by the Gun-maker Himself.

The pattern emerging thus would be doctrinal debate, with both sides locked in that ferocious gun-battle that can only end in the death of one or both

Truth is the cornerstone to Baha'i belief, others who do not except the truth as written by Baha'u'llah, alter and manipulate it as they wish to try to prove it false. Thus you can go to the pure source and read it for yourself or go for the manipulated versions that the web is full of.

A Baha'i is always expounding their belief and it is not kept private

It is very clear to what a Baha'i believes, that is indeed founded on "independent investigation of truth" , it is only twisted by others that wish to attack the Faith

I would suggest it is not good to try to pull out the splinter from another persons eye until we pull the plank out of our own - Just because someone says AMEN does not mean they beleive Christ is God

AMEN - "fair dinkum" & Cheers Tony

arthra

Part of that fear for some is fear of the anti-christ as they perceive it connected to a one world government..the other is a belief inthe return of Christ is in rapture... For us the spirit of Christ returned already and brought teachings and principles for a world civilization.

so for them there is fear about the future.. Baha'is on the other hand tend to be looking forward to a future world civilization..so one is negative and the other positive...

arthra

Try a spell check... how many ways can you spell resurrected? or disciples?

LordOfGoblins

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule
I see little commonalities, in practice and in faith, Perhaps in circumstance but little else. The Desciples and early Christians held to Christ Crucified and him ressurected, God incarnate whereas the bahais dont. While they were both persecuted. As for stigmas, the bahais are (when they debate or argue) intellectually dishonest, and the Christians are sinful.

Try a spell check... how many ways can you spell resurrected? or disciples?
"

I did not see this before but I did now and it was a "what-the" moment. He is trying to bring everyone down now? not just us.
I guess if if you cant bring the ship down from the outside you may as well jump on board and bring the whole thing down with you. grenade the whole thing and take everything out including yourself in the process... lol

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthra ...the other is a belief inthe return of Christ is in rapture...

Besides which, the "rapture"--a word not even in the Bible--is HUGE extrapolation based on a single vague Biblical verse that can EASILY be referring to something else entirely!

It is thus hardly removed from superstition--all the more so given the various contradictory "explanations" of when it will happen and what it will consist of.

Bruce

Yeshua

Catholics and Orthodox Chistians don't believe in the rapture. Its never been part of our beliefs, I honestly don't know where our Evangelical brethren got it from

Nuck81

It was another tool for Fear Mongering. I'm sure the collection plate goes around a little faster and gets a little heavier after an hour long sermon on how of you don't give you're money you'll be left behind!!

When you look at the rest of 1 Thessalonians 4 13-17 ( the passage the rapture is based on) in the context of the rest of the book, a "Rapture" interpretation really doesn't make much sense.

I actually think it does more to proclaim the coming of Baha'u'llah, and reaffirm his position now that he has lived.

To me at least, I think this is talking about the coming of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, the "Voice of the archangel" and the "Trumpet Call of God"

The Dead in Christ will rise first - Everyone that has lived sincerely for Christ and died are already included in Baha'i Faith (Not worded very well, I couldn't think of a better way to state it)

we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air - There is going to be a lot of confusion and obstacles (clouds) in finding the Faith.

Just my humble uninformed and incorrect opinion