Disheartened

Jul 2018
91
Tarshish, bound for Nineveh
So does that mean Baha'is should believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus? It is written in the Bible that Jesus rose from the grave.

From the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh:

The Four Gospels were written after Him [Christ]. John, Luke, Mark and Matthew - these four wrote after Christ what they remembered of His utterances.
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible
Excellent quotes, Trailblazer.

It is indeed written he was risen from the grave. However, it is not written how I should understand that. "Abdu'l-Baha has written on it, and I find his interpretation satisfactory. At the same time, however, I do not find the argument that it would be impossible for the literal bodily resurrection to have occurred, because it would "violate the laws of nature" is an acceptable or logical position to hold.

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trailblazer
Jul 2017
461
Olympia, WA, USA
Excellent quotes, Trailblazer.

It is indeed written he was risen from the grave. However, it is not written how I should understand that. "Abdu'l-Baha has written on it, and I find his interpretation satisfactory. At the same time, however, I do not find the argument that it would be impossible for the literal bodily resurrection to have occurred, because it would "violate the laws of nature" is an acceptable or logical position to hold.

Cheers
I agree the bodily resurrection could have happened as a miracle that violated the laws of nature, given God can violate His Own laws, which is what Christians believe happened, but if we are to be faithful to the Covenant of Baha'u'llah, we cannot believe that the body of Jesus rose from the grave, since Abdu'l-Baha clearly stated that it did not. Moreover, and this is a BIG moreover, there is really no evidence for the bodily resurrection. All we have are stories men wrote decades after Jesus walked the earth, and these stories have unnamed authors, they are not even written by the disciples. As such, I see no good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I find it utterly astounding that so many people beleive that Jesus rose from the dead, even some non-Christians believe it, but that just goes to show how powerful stories can be and how gullible people can be.

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

Question.—What is the meaning of Christ’s resurrection after three days?

Answer.—The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ’s coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: “For I came down from heaven”; and also in verse 42 we find: “And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

Observe that it is said, “The Son of man is in heaven,” while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.

Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve.

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it. Some Answered Questions, pp. 103-105

We also have Baha'u'llah explaining what resurrection means:

“The fifth question concerneth the Bridge of Ṣiráṭ, Paradise, and Hell. The Prophets of God have come in truth and have spoken the truth. Whatsoever the Messenger of God hath announced hath been and will be made manifest. The world is established upon the foundations of reward and punishment. Knowledge and understanding have ever affirmed and will continue to affirm the reality of Paradise and Hell, for reward and punishment require their existence. Paradise signifieth first and foremost the good-pleasure of God. Whosoever attaineth His good-pleasure is reckoned and recorded among the inhabitants of the most exalted paradise and will attain, after the ascension of his soul, that which pen and ink are powerless to describe. For them that are endued with insight and have fixed their gaze upon the Most Sublime Vision, the Bridge, the Balance, Paradise, Hellfire, and all that hath been mentioned and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are clear and manifest. At the time of the appearance and manifestation of the rays of the Daystar of Truth, all occupy the same station. God then proclaimeth that which He willeth, and whoso heareth His call and acknowledgeth His truth is accounted among the inhabitants of Paradise. Such a soul hath traversed the Bridge, the Balance, and all that hath been recorded regarding the Day of Resurrection, and hath reached his destination. The Day of God’s Revelation is the Day of the most great Resurrection. We cherish the hope that, quaffing from the choice wine of divine inspiration and the pure waters of heavenly grace, thou mayest attain the station of discovery and witnessing, and behold, both outwardly and inwardly, all that which thou hast mentioned.” The Tabernacle of Unity, Tablet of the Seven Questions, pp. 61- 63

“How strange! These people with one hand cling to those verses of the Qur’án and those traditions of the people of certitude which they have found to accord with their inclinations and interests, and with the other reject those which are contrary to their selfish desires. “Believe ye then part of the Book, and deny part?” 4 …….. And yet, through the mystery of the former verse, they have turned away from the grace promised by the latter, despite the fact that “attainment unto the divine Presence” in the “Day of Resurrection” is explicitly stated in the Book. It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, that by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 169-170

“Strive, therefore, O my brother, to grasp the meaning of “Resurrection,” and cleanse thine ears from the idle sayings of these rejected people. Shouldst thou step into the realm of complete detachment, thou wilt readily testify that no day is mightier than this Day, and that no resurrection more awful than this Resurrection can ever be conceived. One righteous work performed in this Day, equalleth all the virtuous acts which for myriads of centuries men have practised—nay, We ask forgiveness of God for such a comparison! For verily the reward which such a deed deserveth is immensely beyond and above the estimate of men. Inasmuch as these undiscerning and wretched souls have failed to apprehend the true meaning of “Resurrection” and of the “attainment unto the divine Presence,” they therefore have remained utterly deprived of the grace thereof.”The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 144-145

*****************************************************
So the travesty of astronomic proportions is that the belief in the bodily resurrection, bodily ascension, and bodily return of Jesus from the clouds makes it utterly impossible for Christians to ever recognize the Most Great Resurrection and thereby attain to the divine Presence.
 
Jul 2018
91
Tarshish, bound for Nineveh
I agree the bodily resurrection could have happened as a miracle that violated the laws of nature, given God can violate His Own laws, which is what Christians believe happened, but if we are to be faithful to the Covenant of Baha'u'llah, we cannot believe that the body of Jesus rose from the grave, since Abdu'l-Baha clearly stated that it did not. Moreover, and this is a BIG moreover, there is really no evidence for the bodily resurrection. All we have are stories men wrote decades after Jesus walked the earth, and these stories have unnamed authors, they are not even written by the disciples. As such, I see no good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I find it utterly astounding that so many people beleive that Jesus rose from the dead, even some non-Christians believe it, but that just goes to show how powerful stories can be and how gullible people can be.

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

Question.—What is the meaning of Christ’s resurrection after three days?

Answer.—The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ’s coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: “For I came down from heaven”; and also in verse 42 we find: “And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

Observe that it is said, “The Son of man is in heaven,” while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.

Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve.

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it. Some Answered Questions, pp. 103-105

We also have Baha'u'llah explaining what resurrection means:

“The fifth question concerneth the Bridge of Ṣiráṭ, Paradise, and Hell. The Prophets of God have come in truth and have spoken the truth. Whatsoever the Messenger of God hath announced hath been and will be made manifest. The world is established upon the foundations of reward and punishment. Knowledge and understanding have ever affirmed and will continue to affirm the reality of Paradise and Hell, for reward and punishment require their existence. Paradise signifieth first and foremost the good-pleasure of God. Whosoever attaineth His good-pleasure is reckoned and recorded among the inhabitants of the most exalted paradise and will attain, after the ascension of his soul, that which pen and ink are powerless to describe. For them that are endued with insight and have fixed their gaze upon the Most Sublime Vision, the Bridge, the Balance, Paradise, Hellfire, and all that hath been mentioned and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are clear and manifest. At the time of the appearance and manifestation of the rays of the Daystar of Truth, all occupy the same station. God then proclaimeth that which He willeth, and whoso heareth His call and acknowledgeth His truth is accounted among the inhabitants of Paradise. Such a soul hath traversed the Bridge, the Balance, and all that hath been recorded regarding the Day of Resurrection, and hath reached his destination. The Day of God’s Revelation is the Day of the most great Resurrection. We cherish the hope that, quaffing from the choice wine of divine inspiration and the pure waters of heavenly grace, thou mayest attain the station of discovery and witnessing, and behold, both outwardly and inwardly, all that which thou hast mentioned.” The Tabernacle of Unity, Tablet of the Seven Questions, pp. 61- 63

“How strange! These people with one hand cling to those verses of the Qur’án and those traditions of the people of certitude which they have found to accord with their inclinations and interests, and with the other reject those which are contrary to their selfish desires. “Believe ye then part of the Book, and deny part?” 4 …….. And yet, through the mystery of the former verse, they have turned away from the grace promised by the latter, despite the fact that “attainment unto the divine Presence” in the “Day of Resurrection” is explicitly stated in the Book. It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, that by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 169-170

“Strive, therefore, O my brother, to grasp the meaning of “Resurrection,” and cleanse thine ears from the idle sayings of these rejected people. Shouldst thou step into the realm of complete detachment, thou wilt readily testify that no day is mightier than this Day, and that no resurrection more awful than this Resurrection can ever be conceived. One righteous work performed in this Day, equalleth all the virtuous acts which for myriads of centuries men have practised—nay, We ask forgiveness of God for such a comparison! For verily the reward which such a deed deserveth is immensely beyond and above the estimate of men. Inasmuch as these undiscerning and wretched souls have failed to apprehend the true meaning of “Resurrection” and of the “attainment unto the divine Presence,” they therefore have remained utterly deprived of the grace thereof.”The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 144-145

*****************************************************
So the travesty of astronomic proportions is that the belief in the bodily resurrection, bodily ascension, and bodily return of Jesus from the clouds makes it utterly impossible for Christians to ever recognize the Most Great Resurrection and thereby attain to the divine Presence.

Trailblazer,

I would go further and state that "violation of the laws of nature" is not what a miracle is. After all, what is nature at all but an expression of the Divine will? Really, there are no laws of nature at all, only obedience to Will. If Jesus for example, walked on water, and I fall through it, both are equally in accord with Will, and there is no violation of law.

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trailblazer
Aug 2019
48
Berlin
Hello OpenToTruth,

I would agree with many of your arguments. But if you say that Baha'u'llah only accepted those parts of the Bible that seem favorable to him, then you would have to say the same about modern Christianity. On the part of Jewish scholars, there are vast amounts of statements about how Christianity, due to ignorance of Judaism, has reinterpreted the Hebrew Bible. Christians say the same about Muslims. That they had reinterpreted Christianity due to a lack of expertise.

These arguments assume that the other Revelation was the right one and the new interpretation would be the wrong one. In fact, however, Revelation is the opening up of a new context of meaning: that is why Christianity interprets the Jewish scriptures differently from Judaism, that is why Islam interprets the Christian scriptures differently from Christianity, and that is why Bahaullah interprets the preceding scriptures differently from the respective preceding religions.

You say there is no difference between "The Bible says that" and "Bahaullah says that" - that is correct. And it is, in my view, the beauty of every believer to take his revelation seriously and follow it. What kind of revelation would it be if I, as a believer, did not align my life with it? There is only one small difference that I would like to point out. The Bible is not a prophet, it has been developed over centuries, selected, translated in various ways, theologically interpreted. Modern Christianity originated until 400 years after Christ and none of the Gospels is a record of the words of Jesus. According to modern biblical research, there is even one more source missing (dual-source theory).

The heart of the Christians is great, with which they follow their holy book, only it is not at all verifiable which of the many Christian denominations or doctrines still have anything to do with the original Jesus. It is not said for nothing that Christianity does not describe Jesus as the prophet, but proclaims the Christ of faith - that is to say, the Christ in whom people believe.

In contrast to this, the original writings of Bahaullah are present. And that is the difference.

Many greetings, certitude
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luqman
Aug 2019
48
Berlin
All I see are outdated religious traditions that people cling to for their beloved lives just because they feel comfortable with them.
Don't you feel comfortable with your faith?

It seems that every time I start writing to Christians, I am frustrated to even teach faith because I feel completely hopeless.
Maybe they will have the better arguments.

on the contrary, but there seems to be no common ground at all.
You should realize that the common ground is the love for God. They may not share your concept of absolute truth (which is absolute and therefore exceeds your truth), but you should see devotion and not just difference. Abdul Baha said that Bahai should regularly go to the services of other religions and realize that God is praised everywhere.

They interpret the Bible to mean what they think it means, and then they say it means what they think it means.
The Bahai religion teaches that we should search for the truth. This includes thinking about the scriptures and trying to understand them.
It is a certain law of our time and therefore Christians try to understand the Bible. This is something that requires honest recognition.

Please don't misunderstand me, but it is our nature to often look for differences, because we define ourselves through them. But it is exactly the wrong movement. After all, the Baha'i scriptures teach us perfect freedom in theological questions, which consequently also means to leave this freedom to members of other religions. It is not, in my view, Bahaullah's point of view to harmonize our theological points of view within the Bahai community and outside. The Universal House of Justice once wrote in a letter that subjective truth is a product of the fruit of our spirit and should therefore be respected. As we learn and develop, viewpoints often change. We even Baha'i lecturers should not just believe things, but search for the truth ourselves (I'm sorry that I rarely remember the sources, I will try to catch up in the future), but if you consider this: Why then should believers of other religions pay more attention to your words than to their own search for the truth? It is important that we have a common goal and that means to strive for and see the similarities. It is a matter of realizing one humanity, but by focusing on differences this will not succeed.

best wishes,
certitude
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tonyfish58
Aug 2019
48
Berlin
There isn't a single universally accepted standard for the status of a 'Son of God' that Jesus meets.
"Son of God" is an honorary title that indicates the special closeness to God. He was often used in the Old Testament - kings, prophets, even the whole Israel were the "Son of God". The disciples saw God in Jesus, so they addressed Him with "Lord". Usually only God was addressed with "Lord". That is why they later spoke of the "Son of God" to indicate the closeness between Jesus and God. Another meaning is that the Word of God "flows out" of God. This is the understanding of „procreation“ - the Word flows out of God.
 
Jul 2018
91
Tarshish, bound for Nineveh
"Son of God" is an honorary title that indicates the special closeness to God. He was often used in the Old Testament - kings, prophets, even the whole Israel were the "Son of God". The disciples saw God in Jesus, so they addressed Him with "Lord". Usually only God was addressed with "Lord". That is why they later spoke of the "Son of God" to indicate the closeness between Jesus and God. Another meaning is that the Word of God "flows out" of God. This is the understanding of „procreation“ - the Word flows out of God.
This is an important fact that you raise, certitude, that many Christians are seemingly unaware of. Not only are there numerous references to sons of God aside from Jesus, there are also many called messiah as well, such as David, for instance. So "the messiah" can be confusing or misleading since it may sound exclusive. When the Jews were awaiting "the" messiah, it is not that it would be the first or only messiah but instead "the messiah (whom we are awaiting and who is expected for our time and for aspiration)" and the restoration of a broken succession. The uniqueness of Jesus was his mission and his personality, not his titles.

Cheers
 
Sep 2010
4,550
Normanton, Far North West Queensland
Don't you feel comfortable with your faith?



Maybe they will have the better arguments.



You should realize that the common ground is the love for God. They may not share your concept of absolute truth (which is absolute and therefore exceeds your truth), but you should see devotion and not just difference. Abdul Baha said that Bahai should regularly go to the services of other religions and realize that God is praised everywhere.



The Bahai religion teaches that we should search for the truth. This includes thinking about the scriptures and trying to understand them.
It is a certain law of our time and therefore Christians try to understand the Bible. This is something that requires honest recognition.

Please don't misunderstand me, but it is our nature to often look for differences, because we define ourselves through them. But it is exactly the wrong movement. After all, the Baha'i scriptures teach us perfect freedom in theological questions, which consequently also means to leave this freedom to members of other religions. It is not, in my view, Bahaullah's point of view to harmonize our theological points of view within the Bahai community and outside. The Universal House of Justice once wrote in a letter that subjective truth is a product of the fruit of our spirit and should therefore be respected. As we learn and develop, viewpoints often change. We even Baha'i lecturers should not just believe things, but search for the truth ourselves (I'm sorry that I rarely remember the sources, I will try to catch up in the future), but if you consider this: Why then should believers of other religions pay more attention to your words than to their own search for the truth? It is important that we have a common goal and that means to strive for and see the similarities. It is a matter of realizing one humanity, but by focusing on differences this will not succeed.

best wishes,
certitude
I see that is very good advice. I see it is has been a mistake to spend hours on the net trying to clarify differences. ?

Discussing the differences has its place, but the line is clear. It should never become a point of argument and it should never become our intent to change another's view.

I see we are only to offer what we also practice. I see hollow words that are not based on deeds we also practice, have limited pentrating qualities.

Regards Tony
 
Jul 2017
461
Olympia, WA, USA
Don't you feel comfortable with your faith?
That depends upon what you mean by comfortable. I was not searching for God or a religion when I discovered the Baha'i Faith, it just landed on my doorstep. I believe there was a reason for that, it was meant to be. I am not really comfortable with God, to be honest, but I believe God exists and I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God so I struggle to try to believe what Baha'u'llah wrote about God. I have doubts that God is All-Loving but maybe it does not matter if I believe that. It makes no sense that an All-Loving God would create a world that is a storehouse of suffering, suffering that is unequally distributed, and I cannot cannot force myself to believe something that does not make logical sense to me regardless of all the religious apologetics.

No, I would not say I am comfortable, but I do not think that comfort should be the basis for belief in God. I think belief should be based upon rationality, not emotion, because emotions can be misleading. I think belief should be based upon truth, even if we are uncomfortable with that truth. So that is why I take issue with Christians who believe in the false doctrines of the Church, and I am not the only Baha'i who ever took issue with them.

Christ and Baha'u'llah, Chapter Four: THE FALSE PROPHETS

Regardless of how I feel though I try really hard to treat everyone I converse with with equanimity and I have learned how to disagree but not argue. :)
I find a lot of common ground with Christians, so I try to stand on that ground. Moreover, I am very analytical rather than emotional so the passion that Christians have about God helps me tap into my feelings. That is why I listen to Christian music all the time. It gives me hope that maybe God is loving.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2019
48
Berlin
I see that is very good advice. I see it is has been a mistake to spend hours on the net trying to clarify differences. ?
Discussing the differences has its place, but the line is clear. It should never become a point of argument and it should never become our intent to change another's view.
I see we are only to offer what we also practice. I see hollow words that are not based on deeds we also practice, have limited pentrating qualities.
Regards Tony
My experience is that in the past I have often tried to convince people of the truth. I have always believed that my religion demands this of me. Sometimes I made the mistake of believing that the better arguments would say something about the truth. And so I was frustrated when someone had better arguments because it questioned my truth. The teachings of Baha'u'llah have given us a good tool: to accept subjective truth from people as part of their own path. And tolerance to show ourselves that we have time and space to discover truth for ourselves. And to internalize it and not to try to consolidate it by wanting to be superior to other people. I have never understood Baha'u'llah the way I know it from the previous Abrahamic religions to explain to believers that their religion is outdated and they now need an update. Rather, I try to give people advice on how to search for the truth if they want to. I tell them how I did it myself. And that is the reflection about one's own writings, their origin, development. This is where the critical mind can start and think, «How sure is what I believe in?» Not as advice from someone who has the current or better religion, but from one seriously seeking believer to another, on an equal footing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyfish58