Bahá'í

[PRmerger]

No I was not referring to any of that. Thank you for the image, however.

I certainly concur that our reality, if we have faith, is that of a lover seeking his/her Beloved (note the capitalizations). We seek our Beloved. God has no need to seek for us, He knows where we are. Generally these scriptures and religious poetry emphasize the seeking, not the consummation. That seems right to me, since it emphasizes our humbleness before God, we can’t just grab our Beloved and say “you belong to me”, but we can say “I belong to You.” Hence, what I mentioned about the difference with human marriage, where there ought to be full equality.

That may be the Baha’i paradigm of the human person seeking God.

But it is not the Christian one.

The Christian one is that of a God who is the Hound of Heaven, in passionate pursuit of us.

It is God who extends the wedding invitation. We are to say yes, or no…and then God says, "As you wish.’

This is a question for you, referring to the Song of Songs, I was told the “Catholic” interpretation, at least for parts of it is that it refers to the marriage of Christ and His Church, and I understood that it is the Church as a whole, not an individual member. Can you comment about that?

The Catholic answer is the proverbial both/and. It is indeed a reference to the marriage of Christ and His Church.

But it is also a testimony of the nuptial relationship we as a human person can share with God.

The greatest mystics in the Church always speak of God in nuptial terms. Not as a church, but as an individual member.

And the magnificent teachings of Pope JPII on the TOB echo the Scriptures and the ECFs on the nuptial relationship we have as individuals in union with the Numinous.

 

[PRmerger]

If your proposed post simply came out of the blue like you make it seem, I would ask, “Why do you say this?”

I say it because you act as if you have the assurance of what Christ said is really, truly what Christ said…

and yet you also propose on this thread, “Well, I can hope that he said it, but I can’t be sure.”

Which is the correct tenor when you quote Jesus as saying things and teaching things that the Church has preserved for you and me?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Iggy. Is it just me? Or is your fishing line tangled again.

So you teach they are perfect mirrors by which there is no flaw? So long as you do not go back on this position in the future I will suggest Moses didn’t teach this. Rather Moses in writing the Torah or even if you do not accept that merely existing and doing something contrary to waht you say, sinned against God when he disobeyed God as to how he would perform the miracle God had assigned him. So much so that he was forbidden to enter Israel with the rest of his people but only had to see it. The problem becomes clear. You maintain Manifestations cannot sin, are perfect reflections of the glory of God, you obviously believe this from the writings of your prophets and teachers right? Yet the works of Moses contradict this and you say he is a manifestation. Lets not get on to the crimes of Muhammad for the moment, this one action by Moses is enough, unless you are going to maintain that it is a fraudulent account of Moses in the Torah.

It is a contradiction, to me it seems and the principle in general of contradiction exists all throughout history and bares aggressively against Bahai claims of progressive revelation. That is apparently we only ever are taught different moral or social things in each manifestation, never something ontologically true, yet I would say the things Christ said and did (demanding loyalty to him, worship to him, absolute trust and confidence in him as if he were God) and the things Muhammad taught (Jesus was not God and was not worshipped and he rebuked it) reeks to me of contradiction. There is of Course the Budha, apparently he said it is okay not to consider God important, God was not the Most important thing to him, rather escaping the karmic cycle was and this was done by a certain philosophy of the eight ways. Is that a mere social teaching?

Bahai have to believe that things were one way, one century and another the next or else ignore it. So far they go for the third.

 

[mek42]

I say it because you act as if you have the assurance of what Christ said is really, truly what Christ said…

and yet you also propose on this thread, “Well, I can hope that he said it, but I can’t be sure.”

Which is the correct tenor when you quote Jesus as saying things and teaching things that the Church has preserved for you and me?

In the early days of what would become the Church, were not men doing exactly that task of looking at texts and then knowing what was inspired and not?

As far as accepting this determination, I imagine that before all else, we have hope that their determination was, if not correct, then at least pleasing to He Who Is. Those who go on to trust this correctness, they can be said to be accepting a part of the authority of the Church, though not necessarily exclusively the See of Rome. Those who remain in hope, though, they cannot be said to accept this authority. Perhaps one could say they are hopeful that this portion of said authority is valid, but not much more.

Where did I say that I personally was one of those remaining in hope?

 

[PRmerger]

Where did I say that I personally was one of those remaining in hope?

Not one of “those remaining in hope.”

You posited here that you can’t be sure that the Catholic Church got it right in discerning the canon of the NT.

In the early days of what would become the Church, were not men doing exactly that task of looking at texts and then knowing what was inspired and not?

As far as accepting this determination, I imagine that before all else, we have hope that their determination was, if not correct, then at least pleasing to He Who Is. Those who go on to trust this correctness, they can be said to be accepting a part of the authority of the Church, though not necessarily exclusively the See of Rome. Those who remain in hope, though, they cannot be said to accept this authority. Perhaps one could say they are hopeful that this portion of said authority is valid, but not much more.

 

[Little_Star_1]

Look, Little Star: you have come here and have been rude and uncharitable.

I have given you a friendly warning.

If you continue to post in the manner that you have been posting, you will not be here long.

This will be a tragedy, because it is clear that you need to be exposed to Catholic ideas. Seeds need to be planted in your mind.

I suggest you take my words to heart so you do not get banned.

Please note: I have been here since 2006 and have over 20,000 posts to my name. I have never, ever, received an infraction or suspension for being uncharitable or rude.

So I suggest you take the words of a veteran member and change your mo.

That is all I have to say to you.

Just read and learn and ponder.

If your heart is open, you will be able to post here longer.

God is not about ideas. Do you want me to go through this thread and show you where you have been rude? It is fine for you to denigrate others but, because of your position on here, no one better disagree with you?

I just told you that my Spiritual Director is an Abbott in the Catholic church. I have plenty of exposure to true Catholicism. Once again, you make assumptions about me. I simply do not agree with your version of the faith in word or in deed.

You ask that I open my heart? You really don’t see what you have been doing do you? Or, don’t you think it matters? Examine yourself before you ask that of others. Had you shown me and others the respect you are demanding from others, we would not have entered into this discussion. Also, for your information, Catholicism is not merely a set of ideas, any more than one experiences oneness with Christ by going through a ritual. It is a way of life.

If I am learning anything on this particular thread, it is from those that are genuinely interested in sharing with others, not pushing them around as you are doing me. So, I guess the rule is, it is fine to tear into the beliefs of others, but not your’s.

Do they really allow you to threaten people when they don’t agree with you personally? Do they ban people for questioning an individual’s particular understanding? Particularly given that a great deal of Jesus’ ministry was doing just that in order to guide others to a greater understanding of its meaning and how live the Word.

 

[mek42]

Not one of “those remaining in hope.”

You posited here that you can’t be sure that the Catholic Church got it right in discerning the canon of the NT.

Would you please explain how you figure I posited that? And are you, PRmerger, using the second “you” in your quoted text to mean me personally? (I assume from context that the first one is. )

 

[Servant19]

So you teach they are perfect mirrors by which there is no flaw? So long as you do not go back on this position in the future I will suggest Moses didn’t teach this. Rather Moses in writing the Torah or even if you do not accept that merely existing and doing something contrary to waht you say, sinned against God when he disobeyed God as to how he would perform the miracle God had assigned him. So much so that he was forbidden to enter Israel with the rest of his people but only had to see it. The problem becomes clear. You maintain Manifestations cannot sin, are perfect reflections of the glory of God, you obviously believe this from the writings of your prophets and teachers right? Yet the works of Moses contradict this and you say he is a manifestation. Lets not get on to the crimes of Muhammad for the moment, this one action by Moses is enough, unless you are going to maintain that it is a fraudulent account of Moses in the Torah.

It is a contradiction, to me it seems and the principle in general of contradiction exists all throughout history and bares aggressively against Bahai claims of progressive revelation. That is apparently we only ever are taught different moral or social things in each manifestation, never something ontologically true, yet I would say the things Christ said and did (demanding loyalty to him, worship to him, absolute trust and confidence in him as if he were God) and the things Muhammad taught (Jesus was not God and was not worshipped and he rebuked it) reeks to me of contradiction. There is of Course the Budha, apparently he said it is okay not to consider God important, God was not the Most important thing to him, rather escaping the karmic cycle was and this was done by a certain philosophy of the eight ways. Is that a mere social teaching?

Bahai have to believe that things were one way, one century and another the next or else ignore it. So far they go for the third.

Ignatian, you forgot to mention that small matter of Jesus destroying other people’s property at the temple, you must mention that too, it would only be fair to include it no?

We’ve already been through this Ignatian.

I already explained the THREE aspects of these Manifestations of God. They are all probe to human actions which centuries later may be deemed as sinful, INCLUDING JESUS…

 

[Servant19]

IGNATIAN

Do you REEEEEEAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDD any of our posts???

You quoted one of my posts and rambled a response out to me and failed to reeeeeeaaaaaaddddd my clarifying post 2 posts down the thread.

I want assurances that you read ALL the posts (especially the ones responding to your demands) otherwise I can just not bother responding to your questions, THE VETY QUESTIONS YOU “CLAIM” HAS STILL REMAINED UNANSWERED BUT HAVE ALL BEEN ANSWERED REPEATEDLY ON THIS THREAD

(I’m not shouting here I’m just making sure you see this post clearly)

 

[Jcc1960]

That may be the Baha’i paradigm of the human person seeking God.

But it is not the Christian one.

The Christian one is that of a God who is the Hound of Heaven, in passionate pursuit of us.

It is God who extends the wedding invitation. We are to say yes, or no…and then God says, "As you wish.’.

Well, I agree that God does invite us, and we choose to believe or not. I know you don’t mean it this way, but the way you put it almost sounds like a politician asking for our vote.

This idea of God as a “Hound of Heaven” may be an apt image from the point of view of the real and persistent (meaning eternal) claim that God has on our hearts and our being. To me it lacks reverence. Who coined that phrase?

The Catholic answer is the proverbial both/and. It is indeed a reference to the marriage of Christ and His Church.

But it is also a testimony of the nuptial relationship we as a human person can share with God.

The greatest mystics in the Church always speak of God in nuptial terms. Not as a church, but as an individual member.

And the magnificent teachings of Pope JPII on the TOB echo the Scriptures and the ECFs on the nuptial relationship we have as individuals in union with the Numinous.

Thank you, I will try to read some of these this weekend.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignatian, you forgot to mention that small matter of Jesus destroying other people’s property at the temple, you must mention that too, it would only be fair to include it no?

We’ve already been through this Ignatian.

I already explained the THREE aspects of these Manifestations of God. They are all probe to human actions which centuries later may be deemed as sinful, INCLUDING JESUS…

Did Jesus sin in that action? No he did not, that was his father’s temple, the money changers had no right to be there and do what they were doing in the first place. That was teh rigteous wrath of Jesus against those who hated his father, not a sinful moment in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. But lets concede jesus did sin here in chasing out the money changers with a whip and turning their tables over in his father’s house, lets concede that. Jesus as an immortal, eternal, perfect entity with no flaw, sinned (by your standards), he sinned. A perfect manifestation sinned against the private property rights of the money changers. What does this say as to bahai? Though Moses obviously sinned more in disobeying God.

Although I do not know how you can say Moses Disobeying God and him being punished by God is not a sin in any century.

 

[PRmerger]

This idea of God as a “Hound of Heaven” may be an apt image from the point of view of the real and persistent (meaning eternal) claim that God has on our hearts and our being. To me it lacks reverence. Who coined that phrase?

A former opium addict turned Catholic, Francis Thompson.

Thank you, I will try to read some of these this weekend.

It is, indeed, quite magnificent.

 

[Servant19]

Did Jesus sin in that action? No he did not, that was his father’s temple, the money changers had no right to be there and do what they were doing in the first place. That was teh rigteous wrath of Jesus against those who hated his father, not a sinful moment in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. But lets concede jesus did sin here in chasing out the money changers with a whip and turning their tables over in his father’s house, lets concede that. Jesus as an immortal, eternal, perfect entity with no flaw, sinned (by your standards), he sinned. A perfect manifestation sinned against the private property rights of the money changers. What does this say as to bahai? Though Moses obviously sinned more in disobeying God.

Although I do not know how you can say Moses Disobeying God and him being punished by God is not a sin in any century.

What if He did sin? Nothing, I don’t look at the person, Baha’is look at the eternal life-giving waters of His Word.

The reality is that when Moses disobeyed God in the manner that He did, it provided a lesson of IMMENSE value to those who truly understood.

The lesson of IMMENSE value that Muhammad gave the Arabs where He contradicted Jesus in expressing Jesus’ Divinity was that we should not worship idols. Bringing the Arabs together to unite under the banner of an All-Merciful, SUPREME God was His mission, nothing more nothing less.

It’s only when these teachings of Muhammad are expanded onto the global arena does it start to become something that it never was. Christians like yourself start, then, to criticize it, but it served its intended purpose, to create a nation of NON-IDOL WORSHIPPING ARABS.

Each Manifestation of God has a PURPOSE.

You have completely failed to grasp this REALITY Ignatian

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

If he did sin, sin by definition in the greek being “missing the mark” it means he was not perfect. He was flawed, he was imperfect. Does a manifestation, by bahai definition a mirror of God, therefore still sin? Is theirs an imperfect mirror with cracks and chips and smudges that reflects the reality that they are flawed imitatations of God? I don’t think that’s the bahai doctrine, they seem to be perfect gods as far as I can tell serving the one perfect God, if we can describe manifestations as “them” for there might be only one, bahais don’t want to help me on that point.

Now basically you are saying that if Moses appeared to sin, it was not really a sin but rather an example for men by which to learn something. I question this interpretation obviously, because the text explicitely says that Moses sinned against God and god verbally reprimands Moses.

Numbers 20 : 9 And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. 10 And Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation before the rock, and he said to them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? 11 And Moses lifted his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. 12 And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. 13 This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the LORD, and he was sanctified in them.

Basically in this interpretation of yours, which is possible but is not there within the text itself, nor do we have any reason to assume a bahai interpretation on the text itself, makes this out to be a stage play for a specific purpose of showing God punishes people. Though I would question the necessity of such a punishment, it didn’t its job, much like a lot of the disciplinary action that God had taken to the isrealites. Basically yours an interpretation we could make of all the prophets if we so desired, that it only appeared that they sinned but rather were doing the will of the lord anyway, truly this lord is the best of deceivers if he cannot deal honestly with his people. That’s not my invention, that’s rather what the quran says of your God, you believe in that god, I do not. I must also add, that this is one specific reason as to God not allowing the congregation to go into israel, that is a sin that really was not a sin is the cause for this congregation not entering israel. Basically it is God deciding and then giving them false reasons as to why they cannot enter israel, ie the false sin of Moses and Aaron.

That being said, what of Muhammad bringing the arabs from one form of falsehood to another? Even if it were idol less? You seem to think it was a sin for Jesus to turn over the tables, but didn’t Muhammad destroy the idols of Mecca? March triumphantly into the city? Is a sin only a sin when it can be made into an argument against an opponent? I’m just curious.

Why not also consider Budha in the initial point I made? He didn’t God was the end of all things, he taught escaping suffering was the end of all things. There is a descrepency here that you could only account for by saying “the true teachings of Budha have been lost and corrupted,” which I think you will have to maintain. BUt if you do not go down this route, and continue to maintain that this was his specific teaching to humanity I will contradict that by saying escaping suffering is nothing compared to suffering for God at any point in time. By the way, how could the jews still be the chosen people at the time of Jesus since a manifestation had come and obviously established himself with another people? Or does God have dual covenants at the same time? Interesting thing to think about.
Now if I have failed to grasp reality, I suggest that it is the work of your God who is the best of deceivers whom obviously does not want me to be near him.

 

[Jcc1960]

Did Jesus sin in that action? No he did not, that was his father’s temple, the money changers had no right to be there and do what they were doing in the first place. That was teh rigteous wrath of Jesus against those who hated his father, not a sinful moment in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. But lets concede jesus did sin here in chasing out the money changers with a whip and turning their tables over in his father’s house, lets concede that. Jesus as an immortal, eternal, perfect entity with no flaw, sinned (by your standards), he sinned. A perfect manifestation sinned against the private property rights of the money changers. What does this say as to bahai? Though Moses obviously sinned more in disobeying God.

Although I do not know how you can say Moses Disobeying God and him being punished by God is not a sin in any century.

I am with you on this one, in no way would I interpret turning over the money changers stalls as being sinful or against God. Just the opposite. Neither is there anything else in The Gospels, canonical non- canonical as far as I know, that would ascribe any sinful act to Jesus. Of course there are those who falsely claimed sinfulness because Jesus associated with “prostitutes and Tax collectors”, that is a blatant falsehood.

In the case of Moses, acts that are depicted as sinful are mentioned in the Pentateuch. I do not regard everything in the Pentateuch as historical, however, and my understanding based on Biblical scholarship is that those books are really an amalgam of several (at least 4) written or oral sources. They were probably compiled in their current form during the Babylonian Exile. I believe they contain within them a true and accurate rendering of the words of Moses, revealed by God, where it actually quotes Moses, such as revealing the Ten Commandments and the Law. Descriptions of acts of Moses written in the third person may include moral teachings that are not historical, so I would not use that as proof that Moses was actually a sinner. All of the Bible is inspired by God, it has the ultimate purpose of teaching us about God and bringing us closer to Him.

On the other hand, we have many written accounts of the lives of the Bab and Baha’u’llah and those, like Jesus, have absolutely no unbiased claim of sinful acts. Both the Bab and Baha’u’llah were renowned for purity of motive, generosity, wisdom and knowledge that were innate or God given, not the result of schooling. The Bab was sent to school as a youth, but His teacher sent Him back saying there is “nothing I can teach him”, just like Jesus who spoke to the priests in the temple as a young boy.

 

[happyme]

I have found Him and living within His grace to be as describe. I am blessed as He came for me when I was quite young and I have learned His voice and His love more and more each day. Blessings to you!

Dear friend, I also have had a relationship as you describe with God from a very young age, so wonderful. I read the posts here in this forum and have noticed that you truly shine as a bright star of truthfulness and humility above the horizon of bigotry and falseness.

I am astonished to see you threatened with censure for disagreeing with some.

I am astonished to see people who attack others for different views, we are all different, why do some abuse and show disrespect to people of different belief? astonishing.

But I note that one persons signature or motto says, I hate it when we fight, I hate it when you are wrong.
I found it quite amusing as apparently some discuss and debate in the same manner.

Blessings to you also

 

[PRmerger]

I am astonished to see you threatened with censure for disagreeing with some.

Actually, no one is banned for disagreeing.

People are banned, however, for being rude and uncharitable.

Please note what is being said in the advice:

You are quite rude here, Little Star. Be careful. It is good for you to be here. So it would be a shame for you to be banned.

It is for rudeness that Little Star is being admonished. Not for disagreeing.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

In the case of Moses, acts that are depicted as sinful are mentioned in the Pentateuch. I do not regard everything in the Pentateuch as historical, however, and my understanding based on Biblical scholarship is that those books are really an amalgam of several (at least 4) written or oral sources. They were probably compiled in their current form during the Babylonian Exile. I believe they contain within them a true and accurate rendering of the words of Moses, revealed by God, where it actually quotes Moses, such as revealing the Ten Commandments and the Law. Descriptions of acts of Moses written in the third person may include moral teachings that are not historical, so I would not use that as proof that Moses was actually a sinner. All of the Bible is inspired by God, it has the ultimate purpose of teaching us about God and bringing us closer to Him.

On the other hand, we have many written accounts of the lives of the Bab and Baha’u’llah and those, like Jesus, have absolutely no unbiased claim of sinful acts. Both the Bab and Baha’u’llah were renowned for purity of motive, generosity, wisdom and knowledge that were innate or God given, not the result of schooling. The Bab was sent to school as a youth, but His teacher sent Him back saying there is “nothing I can teach him”, just like Jesus who spoke to the priests in the temple as a young boy.

If we are to reject it on the basis of liberal scholarship I must then ask why bother with these books at all? You cannot possibly know which is realiable in them and which is not realiable in them, yet your prophet would quote them as if they were authority and Muhammad was accounted to have said that he believed everything in the five books according to Moses, going so far as to put a Pillow under it. Though i suspect you do not believe in such an account. But so as the account itself is concerned and if you considered the account in the torah inspired, it does make MOses out to be a sinner, flawed, imperfect and punished by God. The interpretation given by a bahai and believe subtletly by you implies this is nothing more than a play designed to teach the israelites a lesson, but the problem is they are being punished for something that was designed by God to appear as sin but was not really a sin in the first place becasue God wanted to go through this drama for some reason. Its as if God had already decided not to let Moses into israel and then contrived a reason not to let him into israel despite it being false, that is the act of a deceiver. It just isn’t indicated anywhere in the text, this bahai interpretation unless one assumes that MOses was perfect from the start and God does these sorts of things.

So far as your own prophet is concerned, his number one sin is being a false prophet but since you do not believe that I won’t bring up that in the future. I will point out though, that despite bahai calling Mirza Hussain this perfect manifestation of God who mirrors him in everyway he had a very meagre knowledge of the things he was talking about, be it Jesus or Christianity in general. A True manifestation who understand such things, who has existed for all eternity and has been heedful to the affairs of humanity should be able to know how to talk to Christians but he did not, he got our theology wrong, he got what we believe wrong and implicated his own beliefs in a false doctrine (according to bahai) of original sin. Yes you should actually believe in original sin because you are to believe in the immaculate conception which can only exist if there was an original sin. If you want to say immaculate conception means something else then your prophet was not speaking honestly when he spoke of the true doctrines of Christians, as if we didn’t know what our own theology means.

These are the sorts of things I see the worst in, when it comes to Bahai and as of yet there is no cogent responce.

 

[AtomicB]

Philo
“These are the sorts of things I see the worst in, when it comes to Bahai and as of yet there is no cogent responce”

 

[happyme]

Actually, no one is banned for disagreeing.

People are banned, however, for being rude and uncharitable.

Please note what is being said in the advice:

It is for rudeness that Little Star is being admonished. Not for disagreeing.

I have truly read all the way through, and I certainly note what you are saying.
But I am surprised that you do not respond to Little Star when she asks why your rudeness is any different from hers?
Apparently you have some authority so you can attack others while ignoring your own actions. I speak here in truth from what I read.

I have read many wonderful kind and thoughtful questions from certain Catholics here, that I can truly say, they are my spiritual brothers and sisters. But then I see some who are very rude and disrespectful and you say nothing, I am truly puzzled by the apparent contradiction.

But then possibly I will now be threatened by your authority also, but what will it prove only that poor Little Star was correct.