Some Unanswered Questions about Baha’i FaithPosted: February 24, 2012
Today, I dont believe Baha’u’llah’s was who he claimed to be. As for his purposes I can only judge them by being able to read different opinions from others, which I was unable to read prior to coming on the internet.
I believe many western converts to Baha’ism are ignorant (of the Christian Bible) like I was when I first became a member and are easily tricked into joining this nice so called religion wanting Unity for all.. But even in my ignorance I knew something was drastically wrong.
Here are some views I questioned when still a Baha’i but found no Baha’is willing to discuss it. All I got was a wall of silence in my community.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BAHA’I FAITH
Baha’u’llah taught that while normal human beings have two natures (physical reality and rational soul), the manifestations of God have a third nature (the spirit and attributes of God reflected in them). The same spirit of God (although not the same as the Holy Spirit in Christianity) is said to have dwelt within each manifestation, which is why Baha’u’llah claimed to be the return of Christ.
If this is so, how could two different manifestations of God live in the same era of history? Not only were Buddha and Confucius contemporaries (both lived between about 550-480 B.C.), but Baha’u’llah was a disciple of the Bab. Did each of these men only have half of this spirit, or are there two different spirits? Baha’is reject both of these options. The Bab said of He whom God will manifest whose coming he foretold, Were He to appear this very moment, I would be the first to adore Him, and the first to bow down before Him. Yet Baha’u’llah was regularly near the Bab, yet the Bab did not recognize Baha’u’llah as this manifestation, and there is no suggestion that he ever bowed down before him.
‘Abdu’l-Baha’ said that the physical universe has neither beginning nor end. Baha’u’llah taught this too, but he also declared that God created all things out of utter nothingness. Obviously both cannot be true. But if the Baha’is hold that the universe has eternally existed, this violates their basic principle that religion cannot contradict science. The second law of thermodynamics says that the universe is running out of usable energy, hence it could not have been here forever or it would have already spent itself. It must have had a beginning in a moment of time, brought into existence by God.
Therefore, the Baha’is are in serious error.
Baha’is also believe in a form of macro evolution, but they do not believe that man evolved from species of animals. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’ said that while man may have existed in the form of animals which changed and progressed to the present state, he was always by nature the human species, distinct from animals. In this attempt to reconcile the pseudo-scientific theory of evolution with the belief in a Creator the Baha’is contradict both the Bible and the widely propagated Darwinian view of evolution. We know that each species of plant and animal has a unique, unchanging DNA code. Therefore a dog cannot give birth to a monkey, and a monkey cannot produce a human being. And the Bible affirms that plants and animals were created according to their kind, with man being created separate and distinct from them, in the image of God (Gen. 1-2).
One of the greatest contradictions within the teachings of Baha’u’llah is the fundamental principle that religious truth is not absolute, but relative. This means that the truth which a manifestation teaches may later be contradicted by another manifestation, yet the teachings of each manifestation were true for his time. Baha’u’llah may have thought that this was a solution to the insurmountable problem of vast differences among the doctrines of the religions of the world, but this concept is self-defeating. The statement religious truth is relative must be a religious truth, since it was uttered by Baha’u’llah who, as a manifestation of God, claimed to be infallible.
If his statement religious truth is relative is absolute, then the statement religious truth is relative cannot be true. If, however, his
statement is relative (i.e. true only some of the time), then his statement is not universally true in all times and in all places, meaning that absolute revelation does indeed exist. Either way, this
doctrine of relative revelation is false.
This revelation by Baha’u’llah by itself condemns him as a false prophet to be avoided by those who seek truth (Deut. 18:22).