German guy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 5,187
- Reaction score
- 4,255
- Location
- Berlin, Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Before I knew the Baha'i faith, I considered getting into other religions, read a lot about it and went to their meetings, but somehow, it was very hard to accept certain aspects of other religions (mostly, I looked into Christianity and Islam).
Probably the one thing that bothered me most about Christianity and Islam is the claim of exclusiveness and the claim the respective revelation is final: Christians claim you have to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, or you go to hell -- so members of all other religions go to hell by default. Muslims say when you don't accept Mohammed, a mere human, is the "seal of the prophets" sent by God, and when you reject absolute monotheism i.e. by believing in trinity, you go to hell by default.
I could not believe that. Why would God allow billions of people go to hell, simply because they grew up in a different society than the chosen ones? Assuming Christianity is right, why would God allow 1 billion people to follow a false prophet (Muslims)? The same question could be asked vice-versa. Isn't it like in the famous "ring parable" (i.e. found in Lessing's play "Nathan the Wise"), that most of us all, Jews, Christians and Muslims, take our faith from our fathers and teachers who teach it to us, and of course we'll accept it, because we trust these people? And mere reason alone cannot determine which of these religions, which claim mutual exclusiveness, is the right one -- it's a matter of faith, it's word against word and book against book.
When I first learnt about the Baha'i faith by coincidence, I found convincing answers there: According to Baha'i theology, most religions are legitimate religions that stem from the same God. They all are the same in the core, just like the respective prophets are the same. The differences are due to the needs of the respective times when they were revealed, and due to changes in man's capabilities to understand it. No religion is final, religion always needs "upgrades", because mankind changes over time. All religions have in common that they were the respectively best cure of the illnesses of mankind in the respective time.
Baha'i theology distinguishes between "independent prophets" and "dependent prophets": Independent prophets are those which found a new religion, which bring a new "book". Explicitly names as such independent prophets or "manifestations of God" are Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zarathustra, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, the Bab (precursor of the Baha'i faith in 19th century Persia) and Baha'u'llah (founder of the Baha'i faith in 19th century Persia). Thus Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Baha'i faith are legitimate religions stemming from the same God.
Dependent prophets do not bring a new book or found a new religion, but foster and advance the religion founded by an independent prophet. The OT prophets, such as Job, Jeremiah or David are such dependent prophets (they advanced Moses' religion), so is John the Baptist (he prepared people for Christianity) or certain Muslim imams (they advanced Mohammed's religion). In theory, any committed believer can become a dependent prophet.
Of course the best path to salvation, according to Baha'i theology as I understand it, is the Baha'i faith: It's the most recent revelation from the one and only God. It's best for our modern times. "Heaven" and "hell" are not absolute or even physical states, but symbols for the soul being close to or far from God in the next life. You can end up at one extreme, or another, or somewhere in the middle. And as much as i.e. Christianity, Islam or Buddhism are legitimate, though "outdated", religions, I guess a good and committed believer of any of these religions can well end up close to God in the next life.
Even the Baha'i religion is not final. Another independent prophet is expected to appear in ca. 850 years, to update religion once again.
What do you think about this concept of "progressive revelation"?
Probably the one thing that bothered me most about Christianity and Islam is the claim of exclusiveness and the claim the respective revelation is final: Christians claim you have to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, or you go to hell -- so members of all other religions go to hell by default. Muslims say when you don't accept Mohammed, a mere human, is the "seal of the prophets" sent by God, and when you reject absolute monotheism i.e. by believing in trinity, you go to hell by default.
I could not believe that. Why would God allow billions of people go to hell, simply because they grew up in a different society than the chosen ones? Assuming Christianity is right, why would God allow 1 billion people to follow a false prophet (Muslims)? The same question could be asked vice-versa. Isn't it like in the famous "ring parable" (i.e. found in Lessing's play "Nathan the Wise"), that most of us all, Jews, Christians and Muslims, take our faith from our fathers and teachers who teach it to us, and of course we'll accept it, because we trust these people? And mere reason alone cannot determine which of these religions, which claim mutual exclusiveness, is the right one -- it's a matter of faith, it's word against word and book against book.
When I first learnt about the Baha'i faith by coincidence, I found convincing answers there: According to Baha'i theology, most religions are legitimate religions that stem from the same God. They all are the same in the core, just like the respective prophets are the same. The differences are due to the needs of the respective times when they were revealed, and due to changes in man's capabilities to understand it. No religion is final, religion always needs "upgrades", because mankind changes over time. All religions have in common that they were the respectively best cure of the illnesses of mankind in the respective time.
Baha'i theology distinguishes between "independent prophets" and "dependent prophets": Independent prophets are those which found a new religion, which bring a new "book". Explicitly names as such independent prophets or "manifestations of God" are Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zarathustra, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, the Bab (precursor of the Baha'i faith in 19th century Persia) and Baha'u'llah (founder of the Baha'i faith in 19th century Persia). Thus Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Baha'i faith are legitimate religions stemming from the same God.
Dependent prophets do not bring a new book or found a new religion, but foster and advance the religion founded by an independent prophet. The OT prophets, such as Job, Jeremiah or David are such dependent prophets (they advanced Moses' religion), so is John the Baptist (he prepared people for Christianity) or certain Muslim imams (they advanced Mohammed's religion). In theory, any committed believer can become a dependent prophet.
Of course the best path to salvation, according to Baha'i theology as I understand it, is the Baha'i faith: It's the most recent revelation from the one and only God. It's best for our modern times. "Heaven" and "hell" are not absolute or even physical states, but symbols for the soul being close to or far from God in the next life. You can end up at one extreme, or another, or somewhere in the middle. And as much as i.e. Christianity, Islam or Buddhism are legitimate, though "outdated", religions, I guess a good and committed believer of any of these religions can well end up close to God in the next life.
Even the Baha'i religion is not final. Another independent prophet is expected to appear in ca. 850 years, to update religion once again.
What do you think about this concept of "progressive revelation"?