Iconodule

We all know in the bahai scripture it says that if two people argue they are both wrong. Yet Bahai and Christians on this forum and elsewhere have argued about the ressurection of Christ, therefore it follows the bahai beliefs are wrong under this principle. So why continue to believe? Or do you rationalise it and make meaningless this phrase?

(Im sure any bahai could quote it for me, they certaintly have been able to do so in the past when they think it supports their point)

Lunitik

Actually, to a Baha'i, it would show that both stances are wrong... which works out because such things are simply not a focus of our faith.

To more directly answer your question though, for me at least, this faith is not a matter of believing at all. Through personal investigation I simply KNOW this to be the truth. That said, after 2000 years there are still 15 million Jews in the world that have not accepted Christ due to doctrines, so it is hardly surprising that after only 168 years there are differences of opinion with people of other faiths today.

Feel free to show where any Baha'i has engaged in disputation over the legitimacy of Baha'u'llah though, which is really the founding principle of our faith.

Iconodule

Therefore the Physical ressurection as attested by the new testament and the church and the metaphorical ressurection as attested by Mirza Husayn (which is simply the apostles being revived in their faith somehow contrary to their Jewish background reasoning and logic) are both mistakened.

So Therefore you have your own prophet teaching something which is directly false. How can a prophet a true prophet of God Or "manifestation" possibly teach falsehood?

LordOfGoblins

Just because 'b' comes after 'a' doesnt mean 'f' comes after 'c'.
You are sounding more and more vague in your logic and arguments you know.

Iconodule

Um not my argument.

The bahai scriptures state that if two people argue about something they are both wrong.
Christians and bahai have argued on this forum about the ressurection whether it is metaphorical or Actual.
Therefore under this presumption both are wrong, therefore bahai is wrong.

You need to clarify your response.

cire perdue

Views can be right when persons are wrong. Arguing does not make facts wrong, but many of these "facts" are matter of belief and interpretation. After all there are 35,000 Christian groups who don't agree with each other and 16 million Jews that do not accept Christ. IF 2 people argue, both are wrong, not necessarily the words, but the attitudes that are causing the arguments. Baha'i unity has to be experienced to be understood. It is amazing and not easily grasped by outsiders.

Arguing does not change people, if anything it makes people more defensive. No one wins when people argue. The American Congress is run by argument, so I rest my case. Personal faith is not subject to debate. It is silly to think winning any argument would change others. It does not. All these "Yes, but..."'s are tiring.

Baha'is expect to be disagreed with.

Iconodule

Cire the words are clear if two people argue they are wrong. Unless you can show there is a context in which somehow it explores this better your understanding of it doesn't hold water. But apply your standard to bahai, there are like what 10 groups of people claiming to have the proper bahai leadership some still alive some extinct. So Cire, since bahais have argued in the past about the ressurection you must submit that they are wrong right?

Livindesert

It is pretty clear that what is wrong is not the "facts" of either side but the fact they are arguing instead of talking about their views.

Iconodule

Can you please give the quotation and demonstrate it's Clarity?

Mdef

I'am a Bahai. The scriptures are where it is at. Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad is the truth, I believe in the ressurection, regardless phisically or spiritually. God has power over all things. Although, Iam still a younge Bahai, the emphissis of our faith is UNITY. Judasim, Christianaity, Islam, Bahai, are ONE, all coming from the ONE Father.

Peace be upon you.

Sen McGlinn

It's from the Tablets of the Divine Plan:

The text of the divine Book is this: If two souls quarrel and contend about a question of the divine questions, differing and disputing, both are wrong. The wisdom of this incontrovertible law of God is this: That between two souls from amongst the believers of God, no contention and dispute may arise; that they may speak with each other with infinite amity and love. Should there appear the least trace of controversy, they must remain silent, and both parties must continue their discussions no longer, but ask the reality of the question from the Interpreter. This is the irrefutable command!
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of the Divine Plan, p. 56)


and was also taught by Baha'u'llah:

"During the days of Bahá'u'lláh some of the prominent teachers of the Cause in Persia were divided as to the station of Bahá'u'lláh and at last wrote to Him for arbitration. In answer Bahá'u'lláh said that if they were united both sides were right and if they were divided both were wrong. The Master often denied Himself any station just to maintain the unity of the friends for that was His primary object."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the Spiritual Assembly of Yonkers, April 20, 1931

and a similar way of saying this:

Say: Oh servants! Do not make the cause of order a cause for disorder, nor the means of unity a means for disunity. It is hoped that the people of Baha will observe the sacred verse: "Say, all are created by God." This lofty utterance is like unto water for quenching the fire of hate and hostility which is hidden and stored in men's hearts and minds. This single utterance will cause the various sects and creeds to attain the light of true unity. Verily He speaketh truth and guideth to the right path; and He is the mighty, the glorious, the omnipotent.
(Baha'i World Faith, p. 210)

Abdu'l-Baha frequently included numbered lists of Bahai teachings in his talks. In several of those for which we have Persian notes (that is, they are authentic Bahai scripture, not pilgrim's notes), he includes as one of the Bahai principles, that religion must be the cause of unity: if it is the cause of disunity, the absence of religion is better.

tonyfish58

It may be that the quote is taken slightly out of context? This quote may have been directed specifically at Baha'is and arguing about matters of Faith.

- It is quoted such

"In brief, O ye believers of God! The text of the divine Book is this: If two souls quarrel and contend about a question of the divine questions, differing and disputing, both are wrong. The wisdom of this incontrovertible law of God is this: That between two souls from amongst the believers of God, no contention and dispute may arise; that they may speak with each other with infinite amity and love. Should there appear the least trace of controversy, they must remain silent, and both parties must continue their discussions no longer, but ask the reality of the question from the Interpreter. This is the irrefutable command!" ('Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of the Divine Plan, p. 53)

Link to the following observation - 'Abdu'l-Baha's Tablets of the Divine Plan

Why is this mentioned in such a prominent place of such an important Tablet on the subject of carrying Bahá'u'lláh's call throughout the world? It has to do with both love and unity among the Bahá'ís and with firmness in the Covenant, the first two conditions upon which success is based. It's a given that somewhere along the line we are going to disagree with each other over matters of religion. The point is not to prevent discussion of our beliefs, but rather to avoid allowing differences of opinion to divide us or, worse, allowing a particular opinion to take on the force of dogma. Bahá'u'lláh gave us an authorized Interpreter so we could get authoritative answers to key questions. The rest of us may have opinions, but as we are all fallible they can never be regarded as more than opinions. If we forget that, we undermine everything for which we are working.

Extracts from the Bahá'í Writings on Consultation

As far as discussing Faith between religions as long as a Baha'i does not push their Faith on to others I am sure a discussion can continue...this is interesting....

"The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing
opinions." --Abdu'l-Baha

It is important that a clash of opinions does not lead to hostility.

There are many more quotes but basically to consult correctly you lay your opinion in the middle and let it go. If you can not let it go then consultation ceases and there is no point continuing.

This is a guide for personal opinion.

When we are discussing scripture and it's meaning, once an authorized interpretation of scripture has been posted, then there is no point arguing any further if it is not accepted. A baha'i can add nothing else except another authorized scripture..so on so on.

It is my opinion that after a couple of posts on the same topic and no headway is made, then it is time to leave it go

One is either searching or looking for a fight A searcher will continue in their quest a fighter will go in for another round of fruitless head punches

Hope that helps - Cheers Tony

Essence of GOD

the problem is that instead of appritiating anothers advice or view, we put up a egotistic wall in between us and argue.

arthra

There are a few people who visit this forum for the sole purpose of attacking the Faith or the Station of Baha'u'llah...there is nothing they would love better than to drag it down to their level somehow..

Abdul-Baha made a comment that if a tree has no fruit no one would throw stones at it to get the fruit down..

Mirza Abul Fadl responded to the arguments by a Christian antagonist and that became the book "Brilliant Proofs"..

The catalyst for this book was an article written in an English church journal by Peter Z. Easton, a Presbyterian minister who had been a missionary to Iran since 1871. Little is known about Rev. Easton, except that he was a man of extremely conservative views — so conservative, in fact, that they eventually impelled him to abandon his own Presbyterian denomination and to seek the company of more backward-looking Christian sects.

The book is online:

The Brilliant Proof: Table of Contents

Pollwr

For me, I think it is obvious that the quotations refer to people being wrong to argue and it seems that this becomes more important than what is being disputed. I say this because at times one may be arguing and one person may obviously be right, although often it is a point of interpretation that is being disputed. For example, Bahá'ís don't doubt that Bahá'u'lláh is the Manifestation of God for this age. We would not agree that disputing this at great length with someone with a different opinion would make it wrong but we would say that we were wrong to get into the dispute.

It is also interesting to think about what we mean by arguing. I think that word is ambiguous. It is used when two people have a big row and it is used when we make a point. There is nothing wrong, I think, in two people presenting differing opinions and making a case for their opinon but they should know when to stop and accept that the other person has a different opinion. Tonyfish 58 makes this point very well, in his post.

Eftekhar Be Khoda

I don't think it applies to things that Allah himself has spoken of.

And really, I think the idea is more of a "meet in the middle" kind of thing. I think the apostles saw a ghost of Jesus in some sense of the word. It's pretty clear that Yeshua was walking through walls and instantly appearing and disappearing, making appearances, etc. Makes sense as a ghost, but not for a physical body.

Seeroos

haha its because this is the right view, according to my ideologies:

Jesus in India | Tomb of Jesus | Where Did Jesus Die | Jesus in Islam - Al Islam Online

cire perdue

There are always people who like to believe in the most unlikely. I think one as such dwells more in the realm of the head than the heart.