M
mek42
Guest
I hope it is Ok to interrupt the debate for a simple question. What do the Bahai think of the Dao?
- Status
D
daler
Guest
Mek, The following is an interesting treatment of your question. Just a few opinions expressed. Nothing official, and not long:
religiousforums.com/forum/bahai-faith-dir/36171-taoism-bahai.html
A
arthra
Guest
well that’s a good question…mek42…!
There is an essay by Albert Cheung regarding this topic at
bahai-library.com/?file=cheung_chinese_bahai_teachings.html
But to be brief:
The Baha’i Writings state that God is Unknowable:
*All the people have formed a god in the world of thought, and that form of their own imagination they worship; when the fact is that the imagined form is finite and the human mind is infinite. Surely the infinite is greater than the finite, for imagination is accidental while the mind is essential; surely the essential is greater than the accidental.
Therefore consider: All the sects and peoples worship their own 382 thought; they create a god in their own minds and acknowledge him to be the creator of all things, when that form is a superstition – thus people adore and worship imagination.
That Essence of the Divine Entity and the Unseen of the unseen is holy above imagination and is beyond thought. Consciousness doth not reach It. Within the capacity of comprehension of a produced reality that Ancient Reality cannot be contained. It is a different world; from it there is no information; arrival thereat is impossible; attainment thereto is prohibited and inaccessible. This much is known: It exists and Its existence is certain and proven – but the condition is unknown.*
Code:
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 381)“the unconditional and unknowable source and guiding principle of all reality as conceived by Taoists”
Baha’is believe what we can know of God can be attained through His Manifestations - that the Manifestations of God perfectly reflect the attributes of God to humanity over time but as to the essence of God it is unknowable…
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Did Moses perfectly reflect God when he disobayed God? So much so that he was punished by god and not allowed to enter Israel?well that’s a good question…mek42…!
There is an essay by Albert Cheung regarding this topic at
bahai-library.com/?file=cheung_chinese_bahai_teachings.html
But to be brief:
The Baha’i Writings state that God is Unknowable:
*All the people have formed a god in the world of thought, and that form of their own imagination they worship; when the fact is that the imagined form is finite and the human mind is infinite. Surely the infinite is greater than the finite, for imagination is accidental while the mind is essential; surely the essential is greater than the accidental.
Therefore consider: All the sects and peoples worship their own 382 thought; they create a god in their own minds and acknowledge him to be the creator of all things, when that form is a superstition – thus people adore and worship imagination.
That Essence of the Divine Entity and the Unseen of the unseen is holy above imagination and is beyond thought. Consciousness doth not reach It. Within the capacity of comprehension of a produced reality that Ancient Reality cannot be contained. It is a different world; from it there is no information; arrival thereat is impossible; attainment thereto is prohibited and inaccessible. This much is known: It exists and Its existence is certain and proven – but the condition is unknown.*
One common definition of Tao is the following:Code:(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 381)
“the unconditional and unknowable source and guiding principle of all reality as conceived by Taoists”
Baha’is believe what we can know of God can be attained through His Manifestations - that the Manifestations of God perfectly reflect the attributes of God to humanity over time but as to the essence of God it is unknowable…
S
Sen_McGlinn
Guest
If God wanted to punish Moses, God would have plenty of opportunity once Moses was dead. You might notice that God’s policy generally is to rain on the just and unjust fellas equally,* and to let the tares grow among the wheat, only imposing justice in the next world.
So what is the story about? It is a living parable, it creates the metaphor of being excluded from the the promised land. It is a story told for our sakes
*The rain it falleth on the just
and also on the unjust fella
but mainly on the just because
the unjust stole the just’s umbrella.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
No its a direct account of Moses disobeying God out of frustration.
Look what God says to Moses his perfect image, his reflection, his glory.
12 But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe me, and because you did not honor me as holy before the people, you will not lead them into the land I will give them.”
Simply because it goes against your bahai understanding, you should not automatically determine it a parable. Why is that always the case with bahai interpretation?
Also do you believe in original sin?
M
Methos
Guest
So, the fact Napoleon III had lost Mexico 4 years earlier and Prussia smacked down Austria 3 years earlier had nothing to do with this? War with France was considered inevitable if Germany was to be united. It wasn’t a matter of if it would happen, but when. If one has information, one can make insights into what might happen. German Chancellor Otto von Bismark said, “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” World War I started when Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by Gavrilo Princip, a Serbian. However, prophetic words don’t make Bismark a prophet. He knew the political situation in Europe and advocated against any involvement in the Balkans, but he knew he’d be ignored and events would eventually lead to war. Another one for you, Marshal Ferdinand Foch of France after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I, “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.”
P
PRmerger
Guest
M
mek42
Guest
Isn’t this very similar if not the same point many Protestants raise against the Catholic Church regarding Sola scriptura? That just because something in the Bible is difficult to accept literally, the Church decides it is parable?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I am not following your argument here, mek Could you please explain further what it is you mean by Protestants raising a point against Catholicism regarding Sola Scriptura?
A
arthra
Guest
D
daler
Guest
To the Conqueror of Napoleon III, the Author of our Faith had, on the morrow of the King’s victory, addressed, in His Most Holy Book, this clear and ominous warning: “O King of Berlin! …Take heed lest pride debar thee from recognizing the Day-Spring of Divine Revelation, lest earthly desires shut thee out, as by a veil, from the Lord of the Throne above and of the earth below. Thus counseleth thee the Pen of the Most High. He, verily, is the 172 Most Gracious, the All-Bountiful. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III), and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves. Be warned, be of them who reflect.”
“O banks of the Rhine!” Bahá’u’lláh, in another passage of that same Book, prophesies, “We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and so you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.”
Particularly potent to early Bahá’ís was Bahá’u’lláh’s prediction in 1868–69 of the fall of Sultan Abdülaziz, who was deposed in 1876. Other prophecies, including statements from `Abdu’l-Bahá, are general in nature, relating to the nature of future society, and the rise of the Bahá’í Faith to prominence.
D
daler
Guest
“Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another’s life, him also shall ye put to death.”(Kitab Aghdas)
“Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another’s life, him also shall ye put to death. Take ye hold of the precepts of God with all your strength and power, and abandon the ways of the ignorant. Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible according to the provisions of the Book. He, verily, hath power to ordain whatsoever He pleaseth.”
P
PRmerger
Guest
D
daler
Guest
“Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another’s life, him also shall ye put to death. Take ye hold of the precepts of God with all your strength and power, and abandon the ways of the ignorant. Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible according to the provisions of the Book. He, verily, hath power to ordain whatsoever He pleaseth.”
Just so I understand Baha’i teaching correctly:
The Baha’i faith teaches that an arsonist should be put to death by fire? Yes? Or no?
Under current systems of “justice”, it costs the citizens of California, for example, $50,000 per year per, prisoner, contributing to deficiencies of resources for education, health, and human resources, and very nearly bankrupting the state. Something is out of whack, is all I’m saying.
The purpose of reward is to encourage good behavior and train people accordingly, while the purpose of punishment to discourage bad, anti-social, and destructive behavior. Is this correct?
Now let us suppose that the “fear of God” is instilled into the people to such a degree that fewer thefts, murders, and arsons take place. Would that be a benefit or a detriment to society as a whole? One could phrase it this way: Do we wish to encourage or discourage theft, murder, and arson? Or… Do we want more, or fewer of these to occur? And how shall this be accomplished?
Charles Manson has cost the state of California many millions of dollars and everyone believes him to be guilty of the horrible murders of Sharon Tate and her unborn child. While the Laws of God as revealed by the Pen of Baha’u’llah provide for life imprisonment, it would not trouble me at all were he put to death for his inhumane crimes. I think we too often have a sense of misplaced compassion. Just my opinion.
Just so I understand Baha’i teaching correctly:
The Baha’i faith teaches that an arsonist should be put to death by fire? Yes? Or no?
Code:
"O people of God! That which traineth the world is Justice, for it is upheld by two pillars, reward and punishment. These two pillars are the sources of life to the world."The purpose of reward is to encourage good behavior and train people accordingly, while the purpose of punishment to discourage bad, anti-social, and destructive behavior. Is this correct?
Now let us suppose that the “fear of God” is instilled into the people to such a degree that fewer thefts, murders, and arsons take place. Would that be a benefit or a detriment to society as a whole? One could phrase it this way: Do we wish to encourage or discourage theft, murder, and arson? Or… Do we want more, or fewer of these to occur? And how shall this be accomplished?
Charles Manson has cost the state of California many millions of dollars and everyone believes him to be guilty of the horrible murders of Sharon Tate and her unborn child. While the Laws of God as revealed by the Pen of Baha’u’llah provide for life imprisonment, it would not trouble me at all were he put to death for his inhumane crimes. I think we too often have a sense of misplaced compassion. Just my opinion.
P
PRmerger
Guest
D
daler
Guest
Wow.
Where do you see its prescribed only in extreme cases?
Hypotheticals can be useful or useless, but lets try one here for the sake of reasoning, ok? Please help me with this and give me your opinion, for I’m just me… ;-(
Suppose someone has set three houses on fire, maybe a month or a year apart, but there were no deaths, just destruction of property. Personally, I could see putting this person away for life.
Now suppose that another has the same pattern, but intentionally murders people in the process, killing (by fire!!) three families. Him, I would vote for death penalty.
NOTE: It is important to understand that no one has the right to “interpret” the Holy Writings for another. That is, I cannot tell you what this means, other than to say what it means for me. Each has their own perspective.
Also, I would like to add that while living in Pennsylvania about 20 years ago someone intentionally placed trash cans full of debris at both the front door and the back door of the house, burning to death an entire family. My gut instinct would be to throw the bastard into a fire, but then, I come from cowboy country. You may think differently…
So please, with deterrence in mind. give me your gut instinct, as well as your reasoned (name removed by moderator)ut, if they differ. I mention deterrence because part of the reason for punishment, as I understand it, is to deter others from similar acts.
Also, in light of Elijah burning the priests of Baal…
S
Sen_McGlinn
Guest
God forbid, no. The Aqdas sets out in a very compressed form, the principle underlying the justice system, that of “natural justice” or “the punishment fitting the crime.” However this principle cannot be implemented in the case of murder and other extreme situations, for if it was, the society and its judicial system would descend to the level of the criminal.
The balanced retributions for rape, murder and (fatal) arson would be barbaric, and would involve the executioner (or judicial rapist) in a sin, since it is written:
Therefore (back to the Aqdas paragraph 62) there is an alternative where “fitting punishment” cannot be applied in full: life imprisonment.
Murder — and arson even more so — is an instance in which the principle of balanced retribution could be expressed with maximum rhetorical force, but then protected from a too literal application by common sense, and by forbidding the deliberate taking of life. Arson I take to refer to arson in a city, which under Ottoman law was severely punished for
obvious reasons, as a form of murder. The use of burning as a punishment was forbidden in Islamic law, so this verse has a vehemence of expression even greater in the Islamic context than in our own. It tells us, “God’s justice would be for the killer to die, and even for the arsonist to burn,” but then adds that imprisonment is acceptable, and taking life is forbidden (Aqdas paragraph 73).
Naturally imprisonment is to be preferred, but we should remember that this is still not balancing justice, however long the imprisonment may last. The victims will not need that reminder — if you have lost a son or daughter to an unrepetant murderer, imprisonment will not feel like full justice. The victims may need our understanding, they may need us to say “we know that this does not satisfy that sense of justice and injustice that we have in us from our childhood, but it is the best that can be done, since taking life is forbidden.”
Life imprisonment and compensation for the (surviving) victims is as near as we can come to natural justice, without breaking God’s laws ourselves. As often happens in ethics, there are two principles, both valid, which cannot both be followed completely in a given practical situation. Then we have to seek a compromise, or in this case, follow the compromise already provided for us by Baha’u’llah.
The upshot is that the eye-for-an-eye principle remains part of the theology of justice, but the actual implementation of capital punishment is forbidden in the positive law. In this sense — at the level of actually making and implementing laws for society — one could say that the Baha’i teachings are opposed to capital punishment in principle, while recognising that the “instruments of security“ have been delegated by God to the state, not to religious leaders, so states have a right to define the legitimate use of force, and religions may only express an opinion about the principles involved.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, it’s really hard to argue that this is not the teaching, when it says so right here:
“Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn;”
Now, I am really using this argument only to address and rebuke Servant’s modus operandi with regard to Pope Francis’ statement regarding atheists.
My point is that he cannot really argue for his interpretation of our Pope’s statement, taken out of context, without allowing me to argue for my interpretation of your holy text’s writings, taken out of context.
I hope, Servant, that you can see that if you argue for a position, using one sentence, I will do the same with your religious beliefs, using one sentence.
D
daler
Guest
- Status