Bahá'í

[PRmerger]

That’s right PR, He will never force Himself onto our hearts because the very central theme behind Gods Revelation is to not remove the basic principle of human existence, and that is free will.

Would we still have free will if Jesus was seen by ALL to be resurrected bodily?

Sure, we would still have free will.

 

[PRmerger]

Why confuse us all then?

I am not confused.

I think there are those who wish to obfuscate the message, and perhaps are listening to the whispers of the Father of Lies, and therefore proclaim a message that is contrary to that which the Pope has proclaimed.

But not all of us are confused, Servant.

 

[daler]

I am not confused.

I think there are those who wish to obfuscate the message, and perhaps are listening to the whispers of the Father of Lies, and therefore proclaim a message that is contrary to that which the Pope has proclaimed.

But not all of us are confused, Servant.

Then again, maybe there’s a confused Pope now and then. Such as Pope Pius IX, who declared himself to be infallible in 1868, received a Letter from Baha’u’llah in 1869,
and suffered loss of temporal power on September 20, 1870.

O Pope! Rend the veils asunder. He Who is the Lord of Lords is come overshadowed with clouds, and the decree hath been fulfilled by God, the Almighty, the Unrestrained. Dispel the mists through the power of thy Lord, and ascend unto the Kingdom of His names and attributes. Thus hath the Pen of the Most High commanded thee at the behest of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Compelling. He, verily, hath again come down from Heaven even as He came down from it the first time. Beware that thou dispute not with Him even as the Pharisees disputed with Him without a clear token or proof. On His right hand flow the living waters of grace, and on His left the choice Wine of justice, whilst before Him march the angels of Paradise, bearing the banners of His signs. Beware lest any name debar thee from God, the Creator of earth and heaven. Leave thou the world behind thee, and turn towards thy Lord, through Whom the whole earth hath been illumined.

Beware lest human learning debar thee from Him Who is the Supreme Object of all knowledge, or lest the world deter thee from the One Who created it and set it upon its course. Arise in the name of thy Lord, the God of Mercy, amidst the peoples of the earth, and seize thou the Cup of Life with the hands of confidence. First drink thou therefrom, and proffer it then to such as turn towards it amongst the peoples of all faiths. Thus hath the Moon of Utterance risen above the horizon of wisdom and understanding.

Say: Take heed lest your devotions withhold you from Him Who is the object of all devotion, or your worship debar you from Him Who is the object of all worship. Rend asunder the veils of your idle fancies! This is your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Knowing, Who hath come to quicken the world and unite all who dwell on earth. Turn unto the Dayspring of Revelation, O people, and tarry not, be it for less than the twinkling of an eye. Read ye the Evangel and yet refuse to acknowledge the All-Glorious Lord? This indeed beseemeth you not, O concourse of learned men!

(The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, para. 1.102, p. 54-55)

 

[PRmerger]

Then again, maybe there’s a confused Pope now and then. Such as Pope Pius IX, who declared himself to be infallible in 1868, received a Letter from Baha’u’llah in 1869,
and suffered loss of temporal power on September 20, 1870.

I am not following you.

Where is Pope Pius IX confused in the above letter?

And please be careful about what you are accusing our popes of!

If you believe he was confused, you will need to back up your assertion.

 

[PRmerger]

Then again, maybe there’s a confused Pope now and then. Such as Pope Pius IX, who declared himself to be infallible in 1868,

Do you have a quote in which he stated, “I declare myself infallible” in 1868?

My understanding is that it is the office, not the man, that has the charism of infallibility.

But if you can provide a quote of him declaring himself to be infallible, then we can discuss further.

 

[daler]

Do you have a quote in which he stated, “I declare myself infallible” in 1868?

My understanding is that it is the office, not the man, that has the charism of infallibility.

But if you can provide a quote of him declaring himself to be infallible, then we can discuss further.

PR If it is the office which is intended, which officer speaks with the presumed infallibility other than the Pope himself?

My response was generated at the usage of words regarding confusion, and whether I interpreted the tone and intention correctly or not, it appeared to me as challenging the station of Baha’u’llah.
Hence, the confluence of one of His Letters with the various leaders of the day seemed appropriate. Something very similar happened with Napoleon III, who very unexpectedly fell from power within two years of receipt of a Letter from the Prisoner of Akka.

Summons to the Kings

Beginning in September 1867, Bahá’u’lláh wrote a series of letters to the world leaders of His time, addressing, among others, Emperor Napoleon III, Queen Victoria, Kaiser Wilhelm I, Tsar Alexander II of Russia, Emperor Franz Joseph, Pope Pius IX, Sultan Abdul-Aziz, and the Persian ruler, Nasiri’d-Din Shah.

Should you wish to read the texts of these letters, they have been compiled in a Book called The Summons of the Lord of Hosts

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SLH/

 

[PRmerger]

PR If it is the office which is intended, which officer speaks with the presumed infallibility other than the Pope himself?

When the Bishops speak in the area of faith and morals, united with the Pope, then they, too are infallible.

Can you please provide the quote where the pope declared himself to be infallible in 1868?

 

[Servant19]

What I find amazing is that the Pope is clearly addressing non-believers in this interview.

If the intended meaning is incorrect to the audience to which it was intended then what was the point.

“Hey guys, I am the Pope and I have a message for Servant, listen…it’s A B C”

“Ah thank you Pope, I am relieved of your message of A B C”

(Meanwhile everyone who is a Catholic walks away understanding the Pope to mean D E F)

Bizarre from a world leader…

 

[PRmerger]

What I find amazing is that the Pope is clearly addressing non-believers in this interview.

If the intended meaning is incorrect to the audience to which it was intended then what was the point.

“Hey guys, I am the Pope and I have a message for Servant, listen…it’s A B C”

“Ah thank you Pope, I am relieved of your message of A B C”

(Meanwhile everyone who is a Catholic walks away understanding the Pope to mean D E F)

Bizarre from a world leader…

Perhaps God wants you to discuss it further with Catholics, to get the true meaning of the Pope’s words.

 

[Servant19]

Bahaullah’s Writings speak explicitly about what the first duty of all human beings is. So Servant needs not talk to Catholics, besides, I am anyway

What baffles me is that the Pope creates a perceived “changing of the goalposts” for all who do not believe in the Mission of Christ.

This address was not directed at the Baha’is, I assure you, Baha’is know EXACTLY what is required for redemption and salvation.

What the address may have created however, unfortunately, is a sense that godliness is a set of actions with no spirit or meaning behind the said action.

I, as an atheist, can spit in the face of God, yet, if I do my bit for charity, then I can sit easy knowing that its all good…

 

[PRmerger]

I, as an atheist, can spit in the face of God, yet, if I do my bit for charity, then I can sit easy knowing that its all good…

Servant, I feel as if I have been very patient with you, but this is a warning: if you persist in proclaiming this lie, you will be reported.

I am quite certain that you know that the Pope has never said anything even remotely close to this.

In fact, as I write this I ask you to retract the above alleged synopsis of the Holy Father’s message, or I will report you.

 

[Servant19]

PR, with extreme apology I retract the statement. I apologize for the miscommunication. My intention is not to offend

My intended meaning was a reflection of my encounters with atheists who do “spit in the face of God”…I hope that you understand that I was in no way saying that the Pope actually said this. I have read the article several times, and I can see what it says…

I’m just baffled as to why he would say this, that’s all…

Apologies again for the unintended misunderstanding

 

[PRmerger]

PR, with extreme apology I retract the statement. I apologize for the miscommunication. My intention is not to offend

My intended meaning was a reflection of my encounters with atheists who do “spit in the face of God”…I hope that you understand that I was in no way saying that the Pope actually said this. I have read the article several times, and I can see what it says…

I’m just baffled as to why he would say this, that’s all…

Apologies again for the unintended misunderstanding

Forgiven!

Just stop saying that the pope has said that atheists are able to go to heaven just by doing good works.

You would not like it if I took the Babs’ words out of context and said, “It appears that he believes that women should be slaves!”

We are all redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb. All of us.

But you need to learn what redeemed means. It does not mean we are in heaven.

And there is nothing at all that says that atheists are in heaven “just” by doing good works.

 

[Servant19]

Thank you PR.

That’s actually an important point. What is the definition of redemption, going to heaven and salvation and how do they differ?

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you PR.

That’s actually an important point. What is the definition of redemption, going to heaven and salvation and how do they differ?

Did you say you were raised Catholic? If so, what do you remember of what the teaching is?

 

[daler]

When the Bishops speak in the area of faith and morals, united with the Pope, then they, too are infallible.

Can you please provide the quote where the pope declared himself to be infallible in 1868?

PR Perhaps I have misunderstood what appeared as obvious to me. It does not matter to me, really. In my simple understanding, to state that the office one holds automatically confers infallibility upon the one holding the office, which statement was made by the one holding that office at the time, suggests that the one speaking is speaking of his own self by clear inference. If I am wrong in my understanding, I suspect that I am not alone. No offense is intended towards your beliefs. I respect all Christians who have put their faith in Jesus Christ, as I have done. It so happens that I am one of those who believe in His Second Coming and testify that it is His Voice, and His Pen, which spoke to the leaders of His day, fulfilling the prophecies of Jeremiah in the 49th Chapter,

34 The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet against Elam in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, saying,
35 Thus said the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will break the bow of Elam, the chief of their might.
36 And on Elam will I bring the four winds from the four quarters of heaven, and will scatter them toward all those winds; and there shall be no nation where the outcasts of Elam shall not come. …
37 For I will cause Elam to be dismayed before their enemies, and before them that seek their life: and I will bring evil on them, even my fierce anger, said the LORD; and I will send the sword after them, till I have consumed them:
38 And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from there the king and the princes, said the LORD.

The Summons of the Lord of Hosts is a record of the very Letters written by Baha'u'llah to the "Kings and Princes" to which Jeremiah referred.   Elam is Persia.   The Letters preceded the downfall and great loss of the fortunes of those to whom the Letters were written.   History well records the rest.

In the year 1869 Bahá’u’lláh wrote to Napoleon III, rebuking him for his lust of war and for the contempt with which he had treated a former letter from Bahá’u’lláh. The Epistle contains the following stern warning:—

“For what thou has done, thy kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine empire shall pass from thine hands, as a punishment for that which thou has wrought. Then wilt thou know how thou has plainly erred. Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou arisest to held this Cause, and followest Him Who is the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) in this, the Straight Path. Hath thy pomp made thee proud? By My Life! It shall not endure; nay, it shall soon pass away, unless thou holdest fast by this firm Cord. We see abasement hastening after thee, whilst thou art of the heedless.”

Needless to say, Napoleon, who was then at the zenith of his power, paid no heed to this warning. In the following year he went to war with Prussia, firmly convinced that his troops could easily gain Berlin; but the tragedy foretold by Bahá’u’lláh overwhelmed him. He was defeated at Saarbruck, at Weisenburg, at Metz, and finally in the crushing catastrophe at Sedan. He was then carried prisoner to Prussia, and came to a miserable end in England two years later.

This is but one example. The Czars, Kaisers, Shahs, Sultans… They all toppled!!!

Talk about infallibility!

 

[flameburns623]

Redemption means to obtain at a price, to purchase.

In this case, God, through Christ, purchased the liberation of all Creation from the slavery of condemnation.

Humans are offered this liberation as a free gift. Some willfully decline God’s gift.

However, human psychology is somewhat complex, our understanding being darkened and our passions corrupted by the taint of Original Sin. What some people reject explicitly they beg for implicitly.

I worked for some years with severely abused and troubled children and saw this mechanism at work often.

I don’t wish to suggest that unbelievers/atheists are somehow emotionally disturbed. But what you are calling the tendency of some atheists to “spit in God’s Eye”, is actually another example of this.

The atheist who “spits in the Eye of God”, who not only rejects the existence of God but blasphemes Him whenever and wherever possible, USUALLY DOES THIS IN THE SERVICE OF TRUTH. He believes there is something which deserves to be called “Truth” and in service to that Truth he denigrates Falsehood.

I will remind you again of Augustine’s truism: “All Truth is God’s Truth”. Indeed God Himself IS Truth Itself, and in Him there is neither shadow nor variance.

In committing themselves to service of this Truth, therefore, atheistmay–MAY!–have committed themselves to the service of the Unknown God, whom Paul told the Athenians on Mars’ Hill is in fact the One True God. And, God in his Mercy may–MAY!–wink at the times of ignorance of atheists who in good conscience commit themselves to the service of truth in such a way. There is no absolute certainty of this, only God can know hearts and discern true motives–but we Christians can hold out hope that even a hardened infidel may find themselves in the Bosom of God at the end of days.

Doubtlessly much embarrassed before the King whom they had spent their lives denying.

Just to establish that Pope Francis did not concoct this as a latterly innovation, I would refer you to the last book of CS Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, where even some of Aslan’s (Christ’s) mortal enemies, slain in the penultimate battle against King Aslan–find themselves resurrected to a new Kingdom of Narnia . . . . And realize that it was Aslan whom they had been serving, all along.

 

[PRmerger]

PR Perhaps I have misunderstood what appeared as obvious to me. It does not matter to me, really. In my simple understanding, to state that the office one holds automatically confers infallibility upon the one holding the office, which statement was made by the one holding that office at the time, suggests that the one speaking is speaking of his own self by clear inference. If I am wrong in my understanding, I suspect that I am not alone.

It is indeed a misrepresentation you have made.

He did not declare himself infallible in 1868.

Firstly, the charism of infallibility has always been around since St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom in the first century…

Secondly, he did not declare himself infallible. The Magisterium of the Church, which is the teaching authority of the Church, simply formalized that which had been part of Divine Revelation.

If you are not alone in this misrepresentation, that is, well, irrelevant. I believe that there are a lot of folks who have some weird misunderstandings of the Baha’i faith, too (like you are devil worshippers) and can cite some texts from your sacred writings to support their view.

 

[daler]

It is indeed a misrepresentation you have made.

He did not declare himself infallible in 1868.

Firstly, the charism of infallibility has always been around since St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom in the first century…

Secondly, he did not declare himself infallible. The Magisterium of the Church, which is the teaching authority of the Church, simply formalized that which had been part of Divine Revelation.

If you are not alone in this misrepresentation, that is, well, irrelevant. I believe that there are a lot of folks who have some weird misunderstandings of the Baha’i faith, too (like you are devil worshippers) and can cite some texts from your sacred writings to support their view.

I disagree that it was a “misrepresentation” on my part. That was not my intention in the least, and should be clear by now.
As to Divine Revelation, there has been one recently which has come to mankind through Baha’u’llah, Who indeed was infallible, as are all Manifestations of God. That some accept and others turn away is of far greater importance than what would appear to be insignificant by comparison. This, it would seem, might be more appropriate to discuss more fully, as its significance seems to be overlooked for the sake of I’m not sure what, or why.

"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá’u’lláh as the “Spirit of God,” is proclaimed as the One Who “appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost,” and is even extolled as the “Essence of the Spirit.” His mother is described as “that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous, countenance,” and the station of her Son eulogized as a “station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth,” whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused “the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth.”
“Know thou,” Bahá’u’lláh has moreover testified, “that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive and resplendent Spirit. We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened and the soul of the sinner sanctified…. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.”

from the Baha’i Writings

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The problem with that quote Daler is that there are double meanings to what Mirza Hussain was saying that if the Catholic who understood bahai doctrine read that, they would have to say Mirza Hussain was either trying to mislead them or simply out of ignorance profressed such things to gain some sort of relationship with the Catholics. The immaculate conception of Mary for instance says that mary was born free of the stain of original sin, bahais deny original sin in any meaningful way. By Divine origin of Christ you mean something different from the eternal Godhood and sonship of Jesus Christ who does the will of the father. Rather Jesus to you and MIrza was but a reflected image created by God to do his will, nothing more.