Bahá'í

[PRmerger]

Great Little Star… by saying that you implicitly recognize the authority of the Catholic Church.

Egg-zactly.

Again, no one would know what is the inspired Words of God, except that the Catholic Church discerned what was* theopneustos* and what was not.

Thus, when someone quotes from, say, the Gospel of Mark, it is an acknowledgement that she believes that the Catholic Church was correct in telling her that the Gospel of Mark is the inspired Word of God…but that, say, the Shepherd of Hermas is not.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignatian, a sincere question certainly deserves a sincere answer.

Baha’u’llah taught and Baha’is believe that God does answer prayers. And we believe in the intercession of others who pray for us, and we may pray for others. This includes those who have passed on to the next world (heaven). There are beautiful prayers revealed by Baha’u’llah for children to pray for their parents.

If this seems to differ from your understanding of how Baha’is believe in God, then I suggest you read the relevant Baha’i teachings in this light and reasses your understanding of our beliefs.

More than answering prayers, we believe that God’s hand is constantly at work throughout all of creation.

What may be confusing for some people is that we also believe that the processes of nature can be discovered by science (physics, biology, cosmology, geology, anthropology, etc.) by making scientific discoveries, we can learn how God has structured the physical world, and also scientific discoveries can have an impact on the interpretation of scripture. That is off the topic, but I can discuss it at length if you are interested.

So your god can intereact with creation? He can change things about it? He can make it so (however he does it) the sinner sees his error? It seems me the bahai prefer naturalism instead of miracles, so why not prefer naturalism, simply nature arranging itself to a certain pattern to your God’s apparent sovereignty?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Were its doctrines correct when it launched the Crusades? How about the Spanish Inquisition? What about its activities related to the Nazis? What about how it treated the unwed mothers and their children in Europe during the sixties that were placed in its care? Do you agree with the doctrine that lead to millions upon millions of souls being murdered and tortured or forced to leave their homes over the years since the church’s inception? Many could argue that the church lost whatever covenant with the Lord it believed it had when it engaged in these types of atrocities. You say its leaders were infallible, so I guess you do. Leave it alone please.

Any sort of organisation commits faults and while I believe the roman catholic church to be totally wrong on issues like the Pope’s claim to universal authority one should not be so quick as to dismiss teh crusades. The first crusade was justified, so far as I can tell, if not for the simple fact muslims had been moving closer and closer towards europe (by conquering) since their inception, it ultimately helped preserve the west from islam I believe which is a good thing. The other crusades, specifically the fourth in which my own Orthodox church land, constantinople was attacked I can say was terrible, but that doesn’t make roman catholics wrong, anymore than it makes Queen Elizabeth wrong for not allowing Catholics to freely practice their faith and executing quite a few I might add…

 

[PRmerger]

I was not stating my position. I was explaining how one, generic someone not necessarily myself me, might decide that the NT is the best possibility of being a historical document without accepting the authority of the Church.

So what is your position?

And I am not understanding even your generic “someone’s” position?

How is it that the Catholic Church could discern the 27 book canon of the NT, and do so without error, unless she has been given the charism of infallibility?

And how is it then that a person who professes that the Bible alone is his authority could then be submitting to an authority that is NOT the Bible?

 

[Little_Star_1]

Any sort of organisation commits faults and while I believe the roman catholic church to be totally wrong on issues like the Pope’s claim to universal authority one should not be so quick as to dismiss teh crusades. The first crusade was justified, so far as I can tell, if not for the simple fact muslims had been moving closer and closer towards europe (by conquering) since their inception, it ultimately helped preserve the west from islam I believe which is a good thing. The other crusades, specifically the fourth in which my own Orthodox church land, constantinople was attacked I can say was terrible, but that doesn’t make roman catholics wrong, anymore than it makes Queen Elizabeth wrong for not allowing Catholics to freely practice their faith and executing quite a few I might add…

I know that the individual members of the faith cannot be held accountable for the actions of the church leaders. I was responding to her comment that the leaders were infallible. I am truly leaving this thread. I just wanted to clarify my feelings on this. The thread has deteriorated.

 

[Jcc1960]

JCC -

Keeping in mind then that God is Truth and can not contradict himself. He can not have revelation that says both:

1. Jesus is the Son of God
2. Jesus is not the Son of God

OR

1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is not God

And God cannot make a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it.

Perhaps Jesus is God in the sense of Exodus 4:16. Aaron spoke to the people in Moses’ place as a prophet, and Moses was to them “as God”. Or at least, this verse foreshadowed prophetically the station of Jesus. To say that we mortals can fully understand 100% of the meaning of what Jesus said when he said that He is the Son of God, and the Son of Man, we are all children of God, and “the Father is greater than I” seems to me to lack humility.

In any case the dichotomy you set up seems to be a heavy rock to lift, but I am certain that God is powerful enough to lift it.

 

[Servant19]

JCC -

Keeping in mind then that God is Truth and can not contradict himself. He can not have revelation that says both:

1. Jesus is the Son of God
2. Jesus is not the Son of God

OR

1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is not God

By this logic then Pork, the Bible itself is not of God. There are plenty of those contradictions in that Book itself.

At NO point in Bahai Scripture is it stated that Jesus was not the Son of God.

 

[Porknpie]

By this logic then Pork, the Bible itself is not of God. There are plenty of those contradictions in that Book itself.

At NO point in Bahai Scripture is it stated that Jesus was not the Son of God.

Understood in context, there is no contradiction in the bible. God is Truth and does not contradict himself. Do you have a verse in mind?

Pork

 

[Servant19]

So your god can intereact with creation? He can change things about it? He can make it so (however he does it) the sinner sees his error? It seems me the bahai prefer naturalism instead of miracles, so why not prefer naturalism, simply nature arranging itself to a certain pattern to your God’s apparent sovereignty?

Ignatian, you are putting the Bahai Faith into boxes so it can be contained for your pleasures and whims.

However many things you say the Bahai Faith is, it is none of those, it is completely unique in history, theologically super-tight and sound, and is worthy of thorough study by all. It has never been witnessed in human history, and the outcomes it is producing in terms of individual conduct under a collective enterprise has never been witnessed in human history.

Over the next 4 months there will be 114 global youth conferences in 114 different locations in the world, empowering youth to dedicate themselves to a life of service, both individually and (especially) collectively. The nature of the content of these conferences has never been witnessed in religious history and the UNIFIED, collective global action that it will inspire is, again, unique in human history.

Show me where naturalism, Gnosticism, any other -ism (or any other religion in fact) has produced such outcomes?

 

[Servant19]

Understood in context, there is no contradiction in the bible. God is Truth and does not contradict himself. Do you have a verse in mind?

Pork

Sure

You stated " He can not have revelation that says both:

1. Jesus is God, and
2. Jesus is not God"

The quotes I have in mind are: John 14:28 or John 10:29, in comparison to John 10:30

Simple contradiction in the same gospel even…

 

[Jcc1960]

So your god can intereact with creation? He can change things about it? He can make it so (however he does it) the sinner sees his error? It seems me the bahai prefer naturalism instead of miracles, so why not prefer naturalism, simply nature arranging itself to a certain pattern to your God’s apparent sovereignty?

We believe that all sinners will be made to see their error eventually, when they die, however in this life we are given free will to follow God, or not.

God intervenes in answer to prayer, but that is usually in a very personal way for the individuals involved. They know their prayers have been answered, but others may say it was coincidence. Matters of faith are usually like that.

The big way that God intervenes and changes things about the world is by sending Prophets, Messengers and Messiahs to create that change, which then takes place over centuries as the new religion grows and spreads and develops.

Again, there are always those who do not believe who would say that a religion is no different than a political or social movement, so even though God has directly intervened in the world in a way that changes the lives of millions or billions of people, unbelievers have free will, so are free to doubt.

That is one of the reasons why the interpretation of Christians and Muslims about the end of the world, the Ressurrection and Judgement makes no sense to me. The idea that all of a sudden bodies will literally pop out of the graves, the heavens open up, stars fall, etc. that seems to me to be completely incongruous with the way God works. Where is the free will there, or the need to have faith?

 

[flameburns623]

Y’know, before things get too far afield, I wanna address the, “how do you know X is inspired?” issue.

I’ve read widely and done a lot of reading in many, many religious traditions. I can “hear the Voice of God” in the Bhaghavad-Gita, in the Lotus Sutra, in the Tao Te Ching, in the I Ching and Analects of Confucious–and in the writings of Baha’U’llah. (I must admit–the Qu’ran leaves me pretty cold, though some of the Sufi mystics can bring citations therefrom alive for me).

Clearly, God was at work in those who compose/compiled these works. Though I do not claim to believe these religious works to be more than inspired in some higher humanly way. These compositions were written, pretty clearly, by folks who were clearly trying to find absolute Truth, who were disciplining themselves and centering their lives around that quest, who grasped at least some elements of that Truth, and who deserve to be honored for at least the sincerity and heartfelt desire to communicate what they had found to help others.

That, I think, can be contrasted pretty sharply with what I sense about the Book of Mormon: which communicates to me more a perception that it was being composed by a young man still in the midst of that quest for Truth. Not as someone who had long lived with what Truth he had discovered, who had submitted himself for years to the demands of that Truth. Joseph Smith’s later works, such as Doctrine and Covenants don’t even convey so much a quest for Truth as a self-serving desire to make truth fit his needs of the moment.

Which brings us to L. Ron Hubbard: whose works may contain a spark of a desire for truth–but which mostly come off to my ears as something composed by a man who once cynically proposed that to get rich, invent a new religion. The stridency of his words, the gimickry and needless hyperbole, as well as the emphasis on things which clearly he intends to charge money for, all convey this sense to me.

I think a lot of Boomers and post-Boomers have been or still are Seekers, and share the experience I am recounting, even if they haven’t felt quite the same things about the same faith traditions. Sometimes you can just sense authenticity, or the lack of authenticity. Where I feel that something is truly inauthentic, truly a spiritual counterfeit–I lose a lot of interest.

The Baha’i Faith remains interesting to me because it feels as if the founders were genuine. Mormonism is less interesting because, although it’s founder may have begun with good intentions, one can palpably feel the way he moves more and more away from his original purpose towards self-exaltation. And Hubbard: I just can’t feel that Hubbard ever really was into his thing except for himself. I WANT to feel differently–for Hubbard’s sake and the sake of those who live their lives by him–but just can’t.

So “how do I know”? Well–I don’t “know”, strictly speaking. As V. I. Lenin reportedly said, no one yet has invented a Sincere-O-Meter. But, apart from some objective criteria (one can look into the lives of folks like Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Sun-Myung Moon, and see the dissonance, the divide, between their words and their lives. While it is harder to examine the lives of folks who lived long ago or in faraway obscurity–still, one can usually discover at least some evidence if a given person was insincere).

APART FROM THIS, one can simply sense when something has depth, heft, substance.

Not infallibly, but reliably enough to have some confidence, unless one is truly challenged in the area of discernment.

Dunno if this moves the conversation along much but my latest two cents. Many blessings!

 

[daler]

Y’know, before things get too far afield, I wanna address the, “how do you know X is inspired?” issue.

I’ve read widely and done a lot of reading in many, many religious traditions. I can “hear the Voice of God” in the Bhaghavad-Gita, in the Lotus Sutra, in the Tao Te Ching, in the I Ching and Analects of Confucious–and in the writings of Baha’U’llah. (I must admit–the Qu’ran leaves me pretty cold, though some of the Sufi mystics can bring citations therefrom alive for me).

Clearly, God was at work in those who compose/compiled these works.

Dunno if this moves the conversation along much but my latest two cents. Many blessings!

Flameburns Real good to see you again. What wonderful insights you express. Personally, I’d give you a nickel right now for your two cents worth!!

Just a couple of comments. I got the same impression from J Smith, LR Hubbard, and Moon. Clang Clang Clang on an old tin can. Nothing like the sound of a fine church bell or gong.

 

[daler]

Understood in context, there is no contradiction in the bible. God is Truth and does not contradict himself. Do you have a verse in mind?

Pork

(Exodus 33:20) – “But He [God] said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live !”

Exodus 14:9… “Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 10And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. 11And on the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.”

(John 1:18) – “No one has seen God at any time;

Pork. I mean no disrespect to you in posting this, but did so just because you asked.

Please also try and understand that the Baha’is believe in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. We do believe that the Word of God is contained in the Bible, but we also recognize that people have written down these traditions. So while there may in fact be a few contradictions, a verse here or there, we still believe in the essence of the teachings contained in the Bible. Do you follow?

There are certain passages contained which some may insist upon, this way or that, because this word or that was used. It doesn’t so much matter, for the Truth is there to be found. The Bible is a guide to mankind. The Torah was a guide to mankind. God has given us His guidance through the Prophets, and the Bible contains many stories about the Prophets. It is also true that men wrote down much of these stories decades or even centuries after they happened.

What kind of bugs me is that there are some 6000 different translations of the Bible out there nowadays. It is driven by business and “profits”, not Prophets. I do not believe it to be a sin if we keep our thinking cap on while reading or discussing what we find in the Bible, whatever translation we use. I love my Scofield Reference Bible. It was a gift to me 30 years ago.

 

[daler]

So your god can intereact with creation? He can change things about it? He can make it so (however he does it) the sinner sees his error? It seems me the bahai prefer naturalism instead of miracles, so why not prefer naturalism, simply nature arranging itself to a certain pattern to your God’s apparent sovereignty?

Ignatian. I know how much you hate it when I quote Baha’u’llah. Its just that when you want us to show you our little candle when the Sun Itself is shining, we feel humbled to say anything at all. Out of respect for your questions we defer to your wish that we speak with our own understanding. I would like to offer, however, some of the Light directly coming from the Source.

You may choose to read or not to read, according to your desires. Perhaps someone will choose to read the following and post a comment. God bless everyone.

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-27.html

 

[Servant19]

One of my FAVOURITE passages from Baha’u’llahs Revelation daler

THANKYOU!

 

[Porknpie]

Sure

You stated " He can not have revelation that says both:

1. Jesus is God, and
2. Jesus is not God"

The quotes I have in mind are: John 14:28 or John 10:29, in comparison to John 10:30

Simple contradiction in the same gospel even…

Servant19,

This is a common mis-understanding from non-Christians. The Word of God is not contradicting itself. Please read the Haycock commentary below. The Trinity is hard to understand. Jesus the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit all share the same divine nature but the Father is greater in so far as the Son is man, in his human nature. It’s clear that Christ’s apostles and the Church has understood Christ to be God. There is a short catholic.com tract here worth reading too, if simply for the quotations from the Early Church Fathers on the subject.

Ver. 28. The Father is greater than I.[3] According to the common exposition, Christ here speaks of himself, as made man, which interpretation is drawn from the circumstances of the text, Christ being at that time, going to suffer, and die, and shortly after to rise again, and ascend into heaven, all which agree with him, as man, and according to his human nature. But the Arians can take no advantage from these words, (though with divers of the ancient Fathers, we should allow them to be spoken of Christ, as the Son of God the Father may be said in some manner to be greater than the Son, if we consider the order of the divine processions, that is, that the Father is the first person, and proceeds from no other; whereas the Son proceeds from the Father. If any one, says St. Chrysostom, will contend, that the Father is greater, inasmuch as he is the cause, from which the Son proceedeth, we will bear with him, and this way of speaking: provided he grant that the Son is not of a different substance, or nature. St. Athanasius allows the same, and takes notice, that though the Father is said to be greater, yet he is not said to be better, nor more excellent, than the Son; because they are one and the same in substance, nature, and other perfections. (Witham) — The enemies of the divinity of Christ here triumph, and think they have the confession of Christ himself, that he is less than the Father. But if they would distinguish the two natures of Christ, their arguments would all fall to the ground. Jesus Christ, as man, and a creature, is inferior to his Father, the Creator; but, as God, he is, in every respect, equal to him. (St. Basil, St. Augustine, &c.) — Others, likewise, answer it thus: Following the confused opinion of the world, and even of the apostles themselves, who as yet only considered Christ as a prophet, and as a man, eminent in virtue and sanctity, he was less than the Father. (St. Chrysostom; Leont.; Theophylactus; Euthymius) — And likewise the title of Father, (as we generally use the word) is greater, and much more honourable, than that of Son; and in this respect, Christ is inferior to his Father. (St. Athanasius; St. Hilary; St. Epiphanius; St. Gregory of Nazianzus; and St. Cyril) —But this appellation, though really true, does not destroy the equality of the persons, because Christ has declared, in numerous other places, that he is equal to the Father; that he is in the Father; and that he and the Father are one. The apostles ought to have rejoiced that Christ was going to the Father, who was superior to him, considering him in his human nature; because, then, would the Son shew forth his honour and glory to be equal to the Father’s, in heaven. This would have been a mark of a pure, solid, and disinterested love, which ought to have inspired the apostles, if they truly loved their divine Master.

Pork

 

[Porknpie]

(Exodus 33:20) – “But He [God] said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live !”

Quite true. No one in can see God in his divine essence and live. We can only see God face to face when we are divested of our mortal body.

Exodus 14:9… “Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 10And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. 11And on the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.”

Moses did not see God’s divine essence. God appeared as a pillar of cloud or a burning fire.

(John 1:18) – “No one has seen God at any time;

similar to Exodus 33 this is true, no one has seen God in his divine essence, the beautific vision.

The Bible is a guide to mankind. The Torah was a guide to mankind.

One is the inspired and inerrant Written Word of God and one is not.

What kind of bugs me is that there are some 6000 different translations of the Bible out there nowadays

stay with an approved Catholic bible and you will be fine. Suggest the St Ignatius Study Bible (NT only) for it’s rich commentary.

I do not believe it to be a sin if we keep our thinking cap on while reading or discussing what we find in the Bible, whatever translation we use. I love my Scofield Reference Bible. It was a gift to me 30 years ago.

yes we are called to seek the truth…

Scofield has little commentary and its not Catholic. The St Ignatius bible is the best $30 or so that you can spend, again for the balance of the translation but also for the commentary, particularly on texts where you believe there is a contradiction. They are also working on an Old Testament version, the work in progress of which is available on line…perhaps someone could provide the link.

Pork

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

1135 posts!
How did this get by me?
Carry on, I’ll close it later today.

 

[arthra]

1135 posts!
How did this get by me?
Carry on, I’ll close it later today.

It’s been interesting to follow this thread… and all the contributions…even those I would probably not be as interested in but they probably do represent a lot of material from the history of religions Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim and Baha’i. I do hope though that it will serve to encourage further investigation…