Forum Request for everyone.

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
0
#81
من چند سال پیش تو همین فوروم در این خصوص بهاییت و باب و تاریخ پیدایش باب
و بقیه جریانات مفصلا نوشتم
با مدارک و مصادر وقتی این ترید رو دیدم گفتم بیخیاش
ولی جناب میهن دوست کس و شعرهایی رو در مورد بهاییت و اسلامو ربط ان و نظر شخصی خودش رو اینجا پست کرد
که دیدم ساکت ماند مثل شخصی مثل من در اینمورد حکم تایید کردن گفته های ایشون را داره
به همین خاطر از الان در مورد تاریخ بهاییت مفصلا باز سر خودم و شما را درد می اورم و می نویسم
GP,

Meehandoost has been more than polite explaining his belief. Please keep it clean. No reason to resort this language. Also, this is what amazes me, which is people like you who believe in Jinn because Quran has a chapter on it, then call other people's religious beliefs crazy. Go figure. Give us all a break.
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#82
TeamMeli,

I would say the best source about Zoroastrianism is their own holy books, as opposed to what some one else has to say. I did read a few years ago a very interesting book about the effects Iran had on the history of religions which included Zoroastrianism more from a historical view. It was a very interesting read.

William Sears passed away a few years ago, and he does a few books, including another interesting one called "God loves laughter". I mentioned "Thief in the night" because of its many references to prophecy and such. At any rate, you have a very good list and I wish you well in your studies.

You should really thank your parents for raising you a secular person not afflicted with prejudice that we see in many other Iranians.

Ardesheer jan, thank you for your post. The problem is prejudice that is so debilitating that renders one incapable of having a civil discussion. It is not going to go away easily....Be well.
 

TeamMeli

Legionnaire
Feb 5, 2014
7,258
16
Las Vegas, NV
#83
Mehdoost jan, I watched an interesting history channel program on Zoroastrian faith and history. What is interesting is had it have not been for the rise of Christianity and later on Islam, around the 7th century. Zoroastrian would have dominated not only that region but Western civilization. I believe you are correct, the best thing to do is to go to their source and read their holy book. When you go through someone, they have their own bias. It is always best to go to the original source, in this case their holy books. If you are talking about: Christianity, the Bile, Islam, the Quran, Judiasm, the Torrah etc.
There was also a good program on Mitraism and there are parallels between Mitra and Jesus. Mitra was born on Dec 25th, had a virgin mother so it was the same story as the immaculate conception. He performed miracles, raised someone from the dead, had twelve disciples and one disciple betrayed him. Does this story sound familiar? When I have kids one day, I am going to grow them up to be secular. Since I am from a mixed and multicultural family,open minded. She does not have to be German, Slava or Azeri/Persian. I also believe that one can have morals and ethics, without the crutches of religion. I tend to think I am a moral person and I am not religious. Look at some of the biggest crooks who would use the name of God. Rememember back in the day Jimmy Swaggard, "I have sinned!" He got caught trying to solicite a prostitute. Lmao the black girl, "He only offered me $10 I was like dam homie you are Jimmy Swaggard, you can afford to pay more than $10." Then you have the whole scandal and mess with the Catholic Church protecting pedophile priests, etc.
What I am trying to say is if religion helps you somehow and you do not want to go down the spirituality path, that is your thing but morality and good character is on the individual, religion cannot save you. I also believe that people tend to turn to religion, when it is convenient for them, such as a death of a loved one. It gives them some solace about the concept of an afterlife and all that good stuff that goes with it.
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#84
TeamMeli jaan,

Good observations. Zoroastrianism in many ways influenced Islam and Christianity. This is the story of the continuity of God's creative Word. Its simple message of "goodly thoughts, goodly words, and goodly deeds" still rings true and is so simple, yet so beautiful. No religion can appear in a vacuum, they are all connected in their spiritual core, but social teachings evolve to respond to the needs of time and its people. Religions are from God but they are not for God, they are for humanity. As their times come to an end, they too come to an end. Unfortunately humans get attached to an ideology and think of as theirs, their house, their spouses, their children, their cars, and yes their religions, strange! A sign of ego and the prejudice that it creates in people.

For instance, they say that the Báb's message was nonsense and everyone laughed at Him and He recanted His claim anyway, but they still proceeded to execute Him with 750 rifles?!! Does that make sense? The Báb stirred such deep devotion in His followers that they sacrificed themselves without the slightest hesitation, not even begrudging their killers. Would those have been possible from someone who was not resolute in His message? Absolutely not. Their account is written in history by independent observers that were so repulsed by the sheer barbarity of the Persian populace that felt compelled to leave their post and Iran at once. This was created by a malicious and hateful clerical clan that wanted to quench the flame of the new faith, and as conning as they were, they enlisted various cross sections of the society to carry out such heinous crimes that no one can claim innocence, including the students of Dar'ul-fonoon, a great university and a little ray of light in the dark ages of Qajar dynasty. They even fooled Amir Kabir, otherwise a great patriot, into opposing the religion of the Báb and His followers, and he (Amir Kabir) later in his life expressed remorse and regret at the terrible crimes he had committed.

In which other era, did an angry mob ridiculed the Spirit of God about His kingdom, paraded Him in city streets and crucified Him while He seemed alone and friendless; yet His (spiritual) kingdom lives on today and no one remembers those perverted individuals who were blinded by ego and lust for power.

This is what Baha'u'llah has to say about the sufferings He and His followers endured:

"...Behold how in this Dispensation the worthless and foolish have fondly imagined that by such instruments as massacre, plunder and banishment they can extinguish the Lamp which the Hand of Divine power hath lit, or eclipse the Day Star of everlasting splendor. How utterly unaware they seem to be of the truth that such adversity is the oil that feedeth the flame of this Lamp! Such is God’s transforming power. He changeth whatsoever He willeth; He verily hath power over all things…." Baha'u'llah

Reference: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-29.html
 

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
0
#85
This is what Baha'u'llah has to say about the sufferings He and His followers endured:

"...Behold how in this Dispensation the worthless and foolish have fondly imagined that by such instruments as massacre, plunder and banishment they can extinguish the Lamp which the Hand of Divine power hath lit, or eclipse the Day Star of everlasting splendor. How utterly unaware they seem to be of the truth that such adversity is the oil that feedeth the flame of this Lamp! Such is God’s transforming power. He changeth whatsoever He willeth; He verily hath power over all things…." Baha'u'llah

Reference: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-29.html
See, this is the stuff that provides additional evidence that all religions are just made up and on purpose avoid simplicity. This is a very recent religion. Who talks like this anymore? In addition to the fact that he did not say it in English, but they have translated what he said in 1,600 English. Why? To give him more depth and complexity? Why not speak likeregular people (mostly uneducated) so they can understand it in simple language what he wants to say. Because if they say it in simple terms, people say mash gholi was saying the same thing yesterday.
 

TeamMeli

Legionnaire
Feb 5, 2014
7,258
16
Las Vegas, NV
#86
See, this is the stuff that provides additional evidence that all religions are just made up and on purpose avoid simplicity. This is a very recent religion. Who talks like this anymore? In addition to the fact that he did not say it in English, but they have translated what he said in 1,600 English. Why? To give him more depth and complexity? Why not speak likeregular people (mostly uneducated) so they can understand it in simple language what he wants to say. Because if they say it in simple terms, people say mash gholi was saying the same thing yesterday.
Ardesheer jan you bring up an EXCELLENT POINT. You do not want to lose your target audience. The word you are looking for to describe 1600 English is Shakespearean English aka Old English, thou = subject form, thee = object form, and thy/thyne is possessive form. The majority of the people as you mentioned, are not educated. Even in the USA, when I graduated from my uni in 04, it was 25% and today it is 33%. Even with that drastic increase a===, a little over 1/3 just imagine if it's 24 it was a 3rd, 2/3 of Americans do not have a college education. Why not use modern English so the masses can relate? If your goal is to get people interested in your religion, then you need the people to be able to relate to it.
A classic example of this is Evangelical Christianity/Lutheranism vs Catholicism/Orthodox. I put those two together because they have a common history and up to the split, it was one church. Anyways, the Orthodox and Catholic Bishops and Priests use , though, thy and thee. On top of that, it is very traditional, an acapella choir singing traditional hyms. That is all fine and pretty but the Evangelicals have it right. They say "you" and "me" not though, and the. On top of that, to send their message to the youth, they have a band, and the music is modern. That is the wave of the future and also utilize social media to get your message across. That is another good thing Evangellicals do, is spread their message in social media ie facebook, instigram, twitter etc etc.
 
Last edited:

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#87
See, this is the stuff that provides additional evidence that all religions are just made up and on purpose avoid simplicity. This is a very recent religion. Who talks like this anymore? In addition to the fact that he did not say it in English, but they have translated what he said in 1,600 English. Why? To give him more depth and complexity? Why not speak likeregular people (mostly uneducated) so they can understand it in simple language what he wants to say. Because if they say it in simple terms, people say mash gholi was saying the same thing yesterday.
I'm not sure if you seriously find this exert difficult to comprehend, but it's quite the deduction you make, that because the language is difficult to understand (for you) then it must be made up and untrue?! The writings of the Baha'i faith started being translated into English by the Guardian of the faith Shoghi Effendi in early 1900s and he chose this Shakespearean style that in his wisdom was closest to the original text about two centuries ago. Later translations have kept the same format out of respect and to give continuity. Ordinary people cannot inspire and influence people the same way with any style of writing.

Also, keep in mind that religions generally last about a thousand years and the language is bound to change, so the language of holy texts are usually for the time of its beginning, very profound, eloquent and inspiring. As is this one and is not very difficult to understand once thou bestir thyself! Focus on the message and be not dismayed by its apparent difficulty. Then you might grasp its simple yet profound message that the foolish imagine that massacre (killing large groups indiscriminately) and banishment (forcing one out of one's homeland - usually for a belief - into a foreign land) can put out the flame of the lamp that God has lit (His faith), How unaware they are that such adversity is the oil that feeds the flame of the lamp. This is God's transforming power for he changes whatever he wills.

Praises and salutation be upon thee and thy loved ones.
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#88
Language is a but a means of communication. Couple of short passages in Persian if you can read it.

رگ جهان در دست پزشک داناست، درد را می بیند و به دانایی درمان می کند. هر روز را را زی است و هر سر را آوازی. درد امروز را درمانی و فردا را درمانی دیگر. امروز را نگران باشید و سخن از امروز رانید.

ای دوستان سراپرده یگانگی بلند شد، به چشم بیگانگان یکدیگر را مبینید. همه بارِ یک دارید و برگ یک شاخسار.

بهاءالله
 
May 9, 2004
14,768
31
#89
GP,

Meehandoost has been more than polite explaining his belief. Please keep it clean. No reason to resort this language. Also, this is what amazes me, which is people like you who believe in Jinn because Quran has a chapter on it, then call other people's religious beliefs crazy. Go figure. Give us all a break.
اقا واژه کس و شعر از کرسی شعر اومده
و بنده وقتی میگم کس و شعر منظور همان کرسی شعر است یعنی حرفهای پوچ و بی دلیل
منظور کسی که وسط پای خانومها هست نیست جانم اشتباه نشود
در مورد مطلب بعدی شما و مقایسه کردن با قران یا هر ایین دیگر
مطلب الان نقد بهاییت است نه مقایسه ان با قران و انجیل
یعنی اگر شما کار اشتباهی کردید و بنده انتقاد کردم نمی توانید بگویید که فلانی هم اشتباه کرده
اگر گفتم مثلا در بهاییت خانه مجرمین را اتش زدن کار صوابی است نمیتوانید بگویید در اسلام سر مردم را می زنند پس
بهاییت خوب است و نمیشود انتقاد کرد
 
May 9, 2004
14,768
31
#90
GP,

Meehandoost has been more than polite explaining his belief. Please keep it clean. No reason to resort this language. Also, this is what amazes me, which is people like you who believe in Jinn because Quran has a chapter on it, then call other people's religious beliefs crazy. Go figure. Give us all a break.
جناب من بارها گفتم در اینمورد یعنی جن شما یک ترید باز کنید من میام جواب میدم
اینجا بحث ان نیست که ایا اسلام صحیح است یا بهاییت یا کمونیسم یا کاپیتالیسم
اینجا بحث در مورد زیر سئوال بردن گفته های جناب مهین دوست است
و همانظور که مثال زدم اشتباه کردن دیگران نمیتواند دفاع از اشتباه شما باشد
متشکرم
 

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
0
#91
I'm not sure if you seriously find this exert difficult to comprehend, but it's quite the deduction you make, that because the language is difficult to understand (for you) then it must be made up and untrue?! The writings of the Baha'i faith started being translated into English by the Guardian of the faith Shoghi Effendi in early 1900s and he chose this Shakespearean style that in his wisdom was closest to the original text about two centuries ago. Later translations have kept the same format out of respect and to give continuity. Ordinary people cannot inspire and influence people the same way with any style of writing.

Also, keep in mind that religions generally last about a thousand years and the language is bound to change, so the language of holy texts are usually for the time of its beginning, very profound, eloquent and inspiring. As is this one and is not very difficult to understand once thou bestir thyself! Focus on the message and be not dismayed by its apparent difficulty. Then you might grasp its simple yet profound message that the foolish imagine that massacre (killing large groups indiscriminately) and banishment (forcing one out of one's homeland - usually for a belief - into a foreign land) can put out the flame of the lamp that God has lit (His faith), How unaware they are that such adversity is the oil that feeds the flame of the lamp. This is God's transforming power for he changes whatever he wills.

Praises and salutation be upon thee and thy loved ones.
Sorry, but not buying this. This is the same thing done by the Book of Mormons. Their prophet was also recent, but they wrote their Book in old English. This is a scheme used by all religions. Even Quran is translated using old English to make all the BS in there hard to understand. They just want it to sound intellectual, because there is no real substance.
 

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
0
#92
GP,

They have a saying in English that you can tell us the Arabic version. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. That's all I am saying to you.
 
May 9, 2004
14,768
31
#93
GP,

They have a saying in English that you can tell us the Arabic version. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. That's all I am saying to you.
مثل عربی ان هم مثل انگلیسی ان است
لو بیتک من الزجاج لا ترمی الناس بالحجر ترجمه : اگر خانه ات از شیشه است به مردم سنگ نپران
ولی موضوع مقایسه اسلام با بهاییت نیست
من که گفتم نمیشه که اگر اسلام غلط بود ما دیگه از بهاییت و کاپیتالیسم و مسیحیت و یهودیت و بودایی و کمونیست و خلاصه هر مسلکی
انتقاد نکنیم که چون اسلام غلط است پس ساکت بشینیم
اینطور حساب کنیم هیچ کس نمیتواند از دیگری انتقاد کند
من میگم سید علی باب که ادعایی این رو میکرده که باب صاحب الزمان است هیچ اطلاعاتی نداشته
و در ان محاکمه کاملا نشون میده که این بابا اصلا حتی به عقایدی که خودش بیان میکرده اعتقاد نداشته
شما میگی جن اومده تو قران ساکت شو ؟!!!ا
عجب
چه ربطی داره ؟!!!!ا
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#94
Sorry, but not buying this. This is the same thing done by the Book of Mormons. Their prophet was also recent, but they wrote their Book in old English. This is a scheme used by all religions. Even Quran is translated using old English to make all the BS in there hard to understand. They just want it to sound intellectual, because there is no real substance.
My dear, profundity and eloquence of the holy texts is not a feature unique to Old English. Old English or new English cannot change the content and the essence of the text. Language is a tool of communication, lest we make it an obstacle to the discovery of the truth. Let us examine some examples:

"اصلاح عالم از اعمال طیبه طاهره و اخلاق راضیه مرضیه بوده"
Translated to:
"The betterment of the world can be accomplished through pure and goodly deeds, through commendable and seemly conduct."

or
"بگوای برادران به اعمال خود را بیارأیید نه به اقوال."
Translated to:
"Say: O brethren! Let deeds, not words be your adorning."

Or
"بگوای اهل بها در سبیل نفوسی که اقوال و اعمالشان مخالف یکدیگر است سالک نشوید."
Translated to:
"Beware, O people of Bahá, lest ye walk in the ways of them whose words differ from their deeds."

Those translations convey the same profundity, eloquence and spirit.
 

TeamMeli

Legionnaire
Feb 5, 2014
7,258
16
Las Vegas, NV
#95
My dear, profundity and eloquence of the holy texts is not a feature unique to Old English. Old English or new English cannot change the content and the essence of the text. Language is a tool of communication, lest we make it an obstacle to the discovery of the truth. Let us examine some examples:

"اصلاح عالم از اعمال طیبه طاهره و اخلاق راضیه مرضیه بوده"
Translated to:
"The betterment of the world can be accomplished through pure and goodly deeds, through commendable and seemly conduct."

or
"بگوای برادران به اعمال خود را بیارأیید نه به اقوال."
Translated to:
"Say: O brethren! Let deeds, not words be your adorning."

Or
"بگوای اهل بها در سبیل نفوسی که اقوال و اعمالشان مخالف یکدیگر است سالک نشوید."
Translated to:
"Beware, O people of Bahá, lest ye walk in the ways of them whose words differ from their deeds."

Those translations convey the same profundity, eloquence and spirit.
While I agree that those translations convey the same profundity and eloquence, the first. However, "The betterment of the world can be accomplished through pure and goodly deeds, through commendable and seemly conduct," is going to be understood by the masses, more so than the second one. Of course, for those of us who are educated and have a command of the English language, it is no problem. However, not everyone understands this style of English and are not used to ye Old English, like we are. If you grew up in an English speaking western country: USA, Greater UK, Canada, this comes naturally to you. If you are not from an English speaking country and it is not your first language, it can be a problem for some to understand. If you want the message or this truth to reach and impact the majority of the people, one should go with modern English. You do not lose any value as you mentioned either way but it would be understood by a bigger audience.
 

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
0
#96
مثل عربی ان هم مثل انگلیسی ان است
لو بیتک من الزجاج لا ترمی الناس بالحجر ترجمه : اگر خانه ات از شیشه است به مردم سنگ نپران
ولی موضوع مقایسه اسلام با بهاییت نیست
من که گفتم نمیشه که اگر اسلام غلط بود ما دیگه از بهاییت و کاپیتالیسم و مسیحیت و یهودیت و بودایی و کمونیست و خلاصه هر مسلکی
انتقاد نکنیم که چون اسلام غلط است پس ساکت بشینیم
اینطور حساب کنیم هیچ کس نمیتواند از دیگری انتقاد کند
من میگم سید علی باب که ادعایی این رو میکرده که باب صاحب الزمان است هیچ اطلاعاتی نداشته
و در ان محاکمه کاملا نشون میده که این بابا اصلا حتی به عقایدی که خودش بیان میکرده اعتقاد نداشته
شما میگی جن اومده تو قران ساکت شو ؟!!!ا
عجب
چه ربطی داره ؟!!!!ا
Oh yes, you can criticize. But you show that you are a hypocrite and biased, because your belief is not only any better, but it's worse. As I said, you believe in Jinns. Enough said about your belief. When discussion passes physics and goes into metaphysics, we are done.
 

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
0
#97
While I agree that those translations convey the same profundity and eloquence, the first. However, "The betterment of the world can be accomplished through pure and goodly deeds, through commendable and seemly conduct," is going to be understood by the masses, more so than the second one. Of course, for those of us who are educated and have a command of the English language, it is no problem. However, not everyone understands this style of English and are not used to ye Old English, like we are. If you grew up in an English speaking western country: USA, Greater UK, Canada, this comes naturally to you. If you are not from an English speaking country and it is not your first language, it can be a problem for some to understand. If you want the message or this truth to reach and impact the majority of the people, one should go with modern English. You do not lose any value as you mentioned either way but it would be understood by a bigger audience.
Not only that, the Farsi version won't even be understood by most people who have finished high school in Iran. Then you will need people like Akhund to come and explain the teachings. Being able to write in simple terms so everyone can understand is the real art.
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#98
While I agree that those translations convey the same profundity and eloquence, the first. However, "The betterment of the world can be accomplished through pure and goodly deeds, through commendable and seemly conduct," is going to be understood by the masses, more so than the second one. Of course, for those of us who are educated and have a command of the English language, it is no problem. However, not everyone understands this style of English and are not used to ye Old English, like we are. If you grew up in an English speaking western country: USA, Greater UK, Canada, this comes naturally to you. If you are not from an English speaking country and it is not your first language, it can be a problem for some to understand. If you want the message or this truth to reach and impact the majority of the people, one should go with modern English. You do not lose any value as you mentioned either way but it would be understood by a bigger audience.
Fortunately the Baha'i writings have been translated to almost every language so people can read it in their native tongue.
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,836
6
#99
Not only that, the Farsi version won't even be understood by most people who have finished high school in Iran. Then you will need people like Akhund to come and explain the teachings. Being able to write in simple terms so everyone can understand is the real art.
And usually they can, those that want to hear, can and will relate to it. And like other facets of life, a new revelation also renews the language and creates its own style. This is the Baha'i style of literature, and most find it beautiful and inspiring. What you are proposing would be the example of an athlete that doesn't want to do the work, but expects results. If one does not exercise one's literary muscles, one is not going to be more trained. As for Akhunds, fortunately there are none and one and all have to read and form their understanding. That is not to say there are no discussions and reflections, but none can impose their understanding to others. Be well.
 
May 9, 2004
14,768
31
Oh yes, you can criticize. But you show that you are a hypocrite and biased, because your belief is not only any better, but it's worse. As I said, you believe in Jinns. Enough said about your belief. When discussion passes physics and goes into metaphysics, we are done.
عمو تو که باز همان حرف را تکرار میکنی
چه ربطی داره که من مثلا حتی گاو پرست باشم یا اصلا به توتم اولیه اعتقاد داشته باشم
مگر من اسلام رو با بهاییت مقایسه کردم
درست مثل این است که یک ادم زشت از یک کوتوله منگول که میخواد نقش هنرپیشه اول فلمی رومانتیک رو بازی کنه
انتقاد کنه و یکی بگه تو خودت زشتی از این منگل انتقاد میکنی؟!!!ا
خوب وقتی ایشون (میهن دوست ) می فرمایند که چاره همه مشکلات عالم بهاییت است
درست مثل ان است که یهکوتوله ادم قوزی (گوژ پشت)زشت رو بخوای
تو فیلم رومانتیک قهرمان داستان بکنی و دخترا کشته و مردش باشن
اینجا من کچل و شپشو و لوچ و زشت هم باشم می بایستی انتقاد کنم
در مورد موضوع جن هم باز تکرار میکنم بیا یک ترید بزن تا برات در مورد جن صحبت کنم
تو حتی نمیدونی در مورد چی صحبت میکنی
توضیح مفصل میدم تا هم تو هم دیگران فیضی ببرید
ولی وسط بحث در نرو به صحرای کربلا نزن و از جن نپر به ایات مکی و مدنی
حالا اگر میخوای برو یک ترید بزن و در اینمورد بحث میکنیم