Saturday, October 23, 2010

On the Bahai' cult: A critique of the Bahai' faith

I believe I am called to write about this particular subject for several reasons, but none greater than the fact that I have a friend in Apologetics whose family is aligned with this cult. At any rate, once again it will be important to begin with the background of this particular faith movement.

This particular group was started up by a Persian by the name of Siyyid Ali Muhammad in 1844 when he declared that he had Divine Revelation. Similar to what the Muslims teach about Yeshua ushering in an age of peace in the form of the future so-called prophet Muhammad, Siyyid Ali Muhammad or "Bab" believed that there would be a second messenger greater than he whom would usher in an age of peace and justice. His portrayal is also extremely similar to John the Baptist's role and his understanding of Yeshua. This messenger of God was known as Baha'u'llah, whom bears the role of the same understanding of Yeshua in Messianic Judaism. He was born to a wealthy family and desired to help the poor. He declared that he received a vision from God in 1852.

Unlike the other popular cults we have seen, this religion advocates a degree of pluralism as we will see. Of course with our previous article on logic, self refuting claims can not be applied to reality. What the Bahai' cult actually teaches is a form of religious pluralism which falls into a self refuting trap, since all religions can not be true, since they contradict each other. This will be important to keep in mind. The prophets in this particular religion are Moses, Abraham, Yeshua, Krishna, Muhammad and Buddha, whom it is said by those of the Bahai' cult were sent to show everyone how to worship God. Baha'u'llah was imprisoned for 40 years and wrote over 100 volumes of information still utilized by the Bahai' community today. Baha'u'llah died in exile in 1892...and has not seen a resurrection since.

I believe that it will be extremely crucial to recognize what the Bahai' cult actually teaches in order to gain a grasp on this understanding, and this will be a great lead-in to our understanding on faith systems as we dive into Eastern religions. Let us look directly at what the Bahai' faith understands given the writings of Baha'u'llah. "All-praise to the unity of God, and all honor to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things, Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and subtle elements of His creation, and Who, rescuing His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction, hath received them into His kingdom of incorruptible glory. Nothing short of His all-encompassing grace, His all-pervading mercy, could have possibly achieved it. How could it, otherwise, have been possible for sheer nothingness to have acquired by itself the worthiness and capacity to emerge from its state of non-existence into the realm of being?" http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-12.html

As with most religions that copy off of Christian/Messianic understandings, this faith indeed contains some of the same qualities. The Lord is incomparable and the all-glorious Ruler of the universe who created the world. Of this we can not disagree with, and we see the same thing written in Romans 1:20 " 20For (A)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (B)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. " This seems to infer a uniformity of God's nature between most religions, that God is in unity.

However, there is a problem with the Bahai's understanding. That God is centered around a Oneness doctrine. Of course, this does not adhere with Deuteronomy 6:4 which infers a plurality of God's nature with its understanding in Adonai Echad, plurality of unity. This already is enough to contradict the core message of religious pluralism endorsed within its viewpoints, but we shall continue forward in spite of this. Is the Bahai's faith self consistent? "Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. "

This is problematic within its structure. What we have here is the revelation of God to Baha'u'llah from God. However, as he states, that the Unseen can in no wise reveal his essence unto men...it is questioned why this attempt to do so if it can not be done? That is self refuting logically. Nonetheless we continue ""Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise."

In this way we would once again see no problem with this understanding of God. One of the problematic structures we would see is that Krishna supported a different God than this in Hinduism...for example there are about 330 gods in the Hinduistic faith. Whereas, Muhammad speaks of there being only one God in unity. Thus it would appear problematic for those in support of the understanding of the Bahai' cult to support all of these aforestated gentlemen as prophets of God. This needs to be seen as a contradiction. Secondly, the other contradiction is that Baha'u'llah has already stated that God can not reveal himself to man. But here, God is indeed revealing himself to man. For anybody able to see logically through theological claims, this should be seen as being problematic to the structure of the Bahai's understanding.

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-12.html

Does this Eastern religious influence cease to be seen as we continue along? No, we can see that the Bahai' cult does not seem to care much about refuting itself. It should be thought of logically to proclaim the Bahai' cult as being ad hoc for this reason. "The purpose of God in creating man hath been, and will ever be, to enable him to know his Creator and to attain His Presence. To this most excellent aim, this supreme objective, all the heavenly Books and the divinely-revealed and weighty Scriptures unequivocally bear witness. Whoso hath recognized the Day Spring of Divine guidance and entered His holy court hath drawn nigh unto God and attained His Presence, a Presence which is the real Paradise, and of which the loftiest mansions of heaven are but a symbol." Here we see a supporting structure of all of what they refer to as the "divinely revealed" scriptures, which we see above is in support of religious pluralism. There is a huge problem with this understanding however. The books that it is drawing from...in its context, anybody whom has had divinely revealed revelation, all contradict one another. New Age understanding often draws to these conclusions...and I've noticed this understanding a bit with the Catholic church today especially. What becomes a problem is when we look at something simply as basic as Yeshua. I have already written articles about Judaism and the Muslim faith, and Christian understanding discoursing some of the differences between their understandings about Yeshua. If this be the case, what we can logically deduce is that not all of these faiths may be true at the same time in the same sense.

We shall continue with the understanding of the human soul in the Bahai' faith. The human soul is described here "Know thou that the soul of man is exalted above, and is independent of all infirmities of body or mind. That a sick person showeth signs of weakness is due to the hindrances that interpose themselves between his soul and his body, for the soul itself remaineth unaffected by any bodily ailments. Consider the light of the lamp. Though an external object may interfere with its radiance, the light itself continueth to shine with undiminished power. In like manner, every malady afflicting the body of man is an impediment that preventeth the soul from manifesting its inherent might and power. When it leaveth the body, however, it will evince such ascendancy, and reveal such influence as no force on earth can equal. Every pure, every refined and sanctified soul will be endowed with tremendous power, and shall rejoice with exceeding gladness. " This is a fairly universal explanation of the soul made by most religions today. One of the issues with that there is no signs of actual sin which can affect the soul and its connection to God. Man is seen as essentially good in nature, whereas in the Bible it is declared that all have fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). However, a major issue becomes here "And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty." Essentially the teaching espoused within this particular doctrine is that man will become as equal to God. This we have seen also in many New Age teachings today. The Bible declares that man's soul will become married to God, but we will not actually become God and his attributes...especially that of infinite, since we each had a beginning. One is also compelled to ask which road one must take in order to reach God, since this particular religion encompasses so many different religions and roads to take. http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-25.html

We continue further with what man will do when he dies. Especially this is of concern regarding Yeshua's resurrection. Do the Bahai' believe this was a physical resurrection? It becomes impossible with their theological understanding "“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.” There would be liberal Christians today whom would agree with the same. However Rav Shaul states in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 “Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.” How it must be asked may this be reconciled with a nonliteral resurrection, being that the disciples saw an empty tomb and the risen Lord, as did 500 other witnesses? It certainly baffles the mind if these divine manifestations are not of the body as to what the talmidim and Rav Shaul were seeing and are teaching in these regards. Seeing the risen Lord, and attempting to combine that with these teachings above also serve as a contradiction within the Bahai' faith.

In reply to those who believe in the Bahai' cult, I believe it important to state that the logic within this understanding is certainly lacking. The religion should be seen as an ad hoc expression of faith, one that is made up and certainly can not be applied to logic given its self refuting nature. For this reason, I encourage those to seek out a true way of repentence that can not be found in many ways to God, but as Yeshua states in John 14:6- "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." It would therefore be encouraged to the Bahai' proponents that they seek out the truth in Yeshua, and come to understand where true salvation may be found, as Moses, one of their prophets also declares in Leviticus 17:11, that atonement can only be had through a blood sacrifice. It is once again stretched to those seeking for truth in other areas...necessary to declare that truth may not be found in any other theological understanding than the one that we have in Yeshua's teachings, whom is BOTH God and man.

2 comments:

  1. Bahaullah does NOT teach that all religions are the same. He spends some length in the Book of Certitued explaining the origin of the differences between them. What He does say is that all religions have the same Divine Source. Human intrepretatio and curruption did the rest.

    Sin is mentioned in verious places in Baha'i scripture, but usually as trangressions or imperfections.

    To "attain the Presence of God" is VERY different than being the same as God. Baha'u'llah teaches that humans are not and can not be the same as God.

    The teachings of Paul/Shaul are NOT the teachings of Jesus. Christians have confused the two for two thousand years.

    Just as a child is told by its parents to obey the teacher, the parends do not mean just one teacher, but all teachers, so the Divine Messenger meant that that each Divine Messenger was the way the truth and the life. Each Message is taylored by God for the time and place in human events when it is revealed. One day was the time of Abraham, one the time of Moses, one the time of Jesus/Yeshua and now the human race has advanced to a point were teachings on international harmony are critical so we do not self destruct. That would defeat God's plan in creating us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't see a real difference between "all religions have the same divine source" and "all religions are true" which is the position of religious pluralism. That was the position I was in fact addressing. This critique merely attempted to play with certain words.

    On whether Paul's teachings are Yeshua's teachings...well if they are the teachings of God, they are in fact God's teachings. And since God's teaching = the Torah and I have countless articles addressing how Paul/Rav Shaul actually taught the Torah..you might want to start by addressing those first.

    I'm aware. If they were all the way the truth and the life, and yet had conflicting messages (which they do..as you admit in the first paragraph of your critique) then it necessarily follows that they can not all be true..hence they can not all be the truth. Your third paragraph self destructs.

    ReplyDelete