Guess I’m not the only one. Here’s a Hindu woman who embraced the Baha’i Faith, and five years later resigned and became a Christian. She is now a member of the Orthodox Church.
Here is her story. For a blog post, it is exceedingly long (15 type-written pages), but well worth reading. I am amazed at how similar her experience was to mine (except I came from an agnostic background instead of Hindu). Her attraction to the Faith, her puzzlement at the contradictions, and her experience with Protestantism are all similar to my own, and what she says about Eastern Orthodoxy is how I feel about Catholicism.
Two bloggers, Crunchy Con and Wholly Roamin’ Catholic, comment on the story.
My thanks to Steve Marshall for the nice tip.
Filed under: Baha'i community, My old Baha'i life, Oneness of Religion, Resurrection Tagged: | conversion, Hindu, Orthodox
Click on the link above for more comment on the story.
ka kite
Steve
If I thought the Baha’i Faith teaches the things that she thinks the Baha’i Faith teaches, I wouldn’t be a Baha’i either! She obviously understands some things in the Baha’i Writings very differently from what I, and as far as I can see, just about every other Baha’i, understand(s). I would even go so far as to say that is is pretty clear that she misunderstands them, since some of her assertions about Baha’i beliefs seem to go directly against some very clearly worded scripture…but of course, that is my own opinion.
I suppose this is pretty much how most religious people feel, that their beliefs are not properly understood by those who criticize them. Whether that is true, that the criticism is a result of misunderstanding as opposed to a genuine falseness of the beliefs themselves, can only be determined by being as fair and open-minded as possible, of course, and entirely free of prejudice and attachments.
May we all walk the path towards God in a way manner that befits our relationship with Him!
Anyway, thank you for the interesting read.
I think I used to talk to her on the Planet Baha’i forum. It could be a different person with the same name, but she was also a Hindu who became a Baha’i who was interested in Christianity.
Lukas wrote:
She obviously understands some things in the Baha’i Writings very differently from what I, and as far as I can see, just about every other Baha’i, understand(s).
Can you give any examples? I might agree with you, I just don’t know what you’re referring to.
“Here’s a Hindu woman who embraced the Baha’i Faith, and five years later resigned and became a Christian.”
Here’s a cathecised Roman Catholic man who resigned and became a Baha’i. There is one thing that woman says which I will agree with – “…we have just drawn different conclusions.”
Puc.
Dear Jonah,
Through quite extensive discussion with her, I am learning about Orthodox Christianity, on which she kindly enlightens me. One thing that struck me is the Orthodox Christian view on Catholicism. It appears that Catholicism is seen as quite a serious deviation from the original teachings as inspired by the Holy Spirit herself and thereby presumably generally held by the apostles and early Christians. The Holy Spirit (who is a Person I have learned) ‘lives’ in the one body of Christ which is the Orthodox Church – the only Church that has preserved the true teachings on God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. The rest of Christianity, and obviously other faiths, are at least deviations and sometimes even ‘inspired’ by the devil.
Is there a similar Catholic view on the Orthodox Church, other Christian denominations and other faiths?
Mr. Rep,
In my experience there seems to be a lot of anti-Catholic feeling among Orthodox Christians, which leads them to exaggerate the doctrinal differences between Catholic and Orthodox.
The Catholic position is that the Orthodox churches hold the same faith as us. Their sacraments are the same as ours and just as efficacious, and their doctrines are pretty much the same, too. It’s essentially the same religion.
There is of course a lot of doctrinal diversity among Protestants. To speak generally, the Catholic view is that they maintained some truths of the gospel and lost others, but we still see them as part of the one Church.
There are no hard and fast boundaries between who is in and who is out. Rather, everyone is connected to God through the Church in some sense, which varies from person to person, and even within the same person from one period in life to another.
I should also bring up natural law. Catholics believe that all human beings have an innate faculty for comprehending truth independent of revelation, and this innate faculty is the natural law. Revelation is still necessary because natural law will take you only so far. But since all people have it, that means the followers of other religions have it too.
Therefore, the Catholic view of other religions is that they all have some truth, and the followers of all religions are capable, by virtue of natural law, of living godly lives. However, the truth in these other religions is mixed with error.
Thanks Jonah for the clear explanation.
Another question comes to mind (apologies for the many entries on your blog within a short time, I won’t keep that up :-)).
From the same discussion mentioned above, I learned that at least for some Christians the devil, or various demons, play an important role in this world as real creatures, not just as the individual ego or insistent self. The role of these evil spirits seems to be to keep people away from the true faith in Christ and they even inspire some (like Muhammad for instance) to ‘invent’ new religions for this very purpose. The devil even goes so far as to make following false religions ‘seem good’ outwardly to confuse people. The only way (?) left to ‘check’ if one isn’t influenced by the whisperings of Satan is to sincerely look inward and see if you ‘really’ believe Jesus Christ is God Himself (and also His Son) and to acknowledge to Truth of the Trinity, translated into becoming a member of the Body of Christ, which can either be the Christian Faith in general or a particular Church. What is your take on this?
So let me just sum up her argument:
Against the historical evidence of the life of Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Nuri (Baha’u'llah) she sides instead with an article of faith.
That’s not rational– by definition, that is, it’s not rational.
She comes much closer than have other “ex-Baha’is” on explicitly denying the claims of Baha’u'llah i.e. that He was either deluded or conscientiously perpetrating a fraud. That’s the clearest and really only reasonable standard of judgement for somebody to leave the Baha’i Faith who had sufficient cause to *reasonably* be deemed a believer in the first place.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, to quote Carl Sagan. And I have found the evidence for Baha’u'llah to be extraordinary– in fact singularly so. However I readily confess that I currently lack the expertise in scholarship and Arabic/Farsi to adequately scrutinize Baha’i writings, the Qur’an and the original historical evidence to make a judgement that I would consider is equal to weight of the issue.
Along those lines I find that people who either refute the claims of Baha’u'llah or have left the Baha’i Faith don’t come anywhere close to the standard I personally accept as warranted. In fact in every case it’s either been a disillusionment with Administration of the Baha’i Faith or like this lady, who because of her faith in the physical resurrection of Christ judges Baha’u'llah to be a false prophet (which I believe would be a punctilious, if antediluvian, phrase when used in reference to Christianity), makes what is certainly a lax, and even fairly characterized as frivolous, argument lacking any real degree of rigor.
Personally, I am not even sure that I could, based on the evidence, even come to believe in the historicity of Jesus, not to even begin to mention His physical resurrection (which can only be reasonably characterized as an article of faith), if not for Baha’u'llah who, of course affirms only the former.
Having said all that I am glad she’s found a religious practice that will help her advance spiritually… Personally I don’t see how one could accept her claims for having been a Baha’i– It’s easy to sign a card attend feast and believe that settles the matter. The standard of investigation is really so high it doesn’t leave any grounds to find recourse in another faith. In anyone’s spiritual search they may be attracted to principles of the Baha’i Faith and for a while ascribe to themselves as being a Baha’i without ever really having becoming confirmed, so to speak, before finding a more satisfying spiritual level of practice. And it’s certainly better to find a religious practice one can honestly participate in rather going through life as Baha’i in name only.
.
“Personally I don’t see how one could accept her claims for having been a Baha’i– It’s easy to sign a card attend feast and believe that settles the matter. The standard of investigation is really so high it doesn’t leave any grounds to find recourse in another faith.”
Apparently the Universal House of Justice did. And they are regarded as infallible according to your religion. So, if the infallible institution accepted someone as a believer, who are you to say otherwise?
It is possible for a person to believe something, and then change their beliefs. It doesn’t mean they were “never believers in the first place”. I also know that she tried very hard to be a Baha’i, and did not take it lightly. It is also not for an individual Baha’i to judge the ‘level’ of faith of their fellow believers.
“We regard fanaticism and zealotry as redounding to our credit and honor, and not content with this, we denounce one another and plot each other’s ruin, and whenever we wish to put on a show of wisdom and learning, of virtue and godliness, we set about mocking and reviling this one and that. “The ideas of such a one,” we say, “are wide of the mark, and so-and-so’s behavior leaves much to be desired. The religious observances of Zayd are few and far between, and Amr is not firm in his faith. So-and-so’s opinions smack of Europe. Fundamentally, Blank thinks of nothing but his own name and fame….”
-’Abdu’l-Baha, Secret of Divine Civilization, pg. 55
Dear Matt,
I fully agree when you say: “It is … not for an individual Baha’i to judge the ‘level’ of faith of their fellow believers.”, even when that person resigned from the Faith. Faith does not appear to be something that is fully present or absent, but has degrees and goes through stages, crises and resurrections and can switch loyalties.
You also say “Apparently the Universal House of Justice did. And they are regarded as infallible according to your religion. So, if the infallible institution accepted someone as a believer, who are you to say otherwise?”
That, to me, is a bit over the top. In the Bahai writings, the Universal House of Justice is promised infallibility specifically regarding application and supplementation of baha’i law. Next to that, the writings say it is the central authority to which baha’is should turn for guidance. The House cannot and does not investigate the integrity of each individual declaration of faith. As you say, ultimately no one can adequately judge that.
It is the responsibility of the House, though, to pronounce judgement on apparent lack of integrity of faith (as judged from specific activities) when that is damaging the reputation or image of the Faith as represented by the Bahai community. But even that, in my understanding, is not an ultimate judgement of an individual’s personal relation to God.
Mr Rep asked:
From the same discussion mentioned above, I learned that at least for some Christians the devil, or various demons, play an important role in this world as real creatures, not just as the individual ego or insistent self. …
What is your take on this?
I respond to this comment in the post Angels and demons.