Baha'i Returns Thread: Ask Any of Many Baha'i

[SteveVH]

Maybe another topic for discussion could be considered… Does anyone have any questions that you’ve been curious about…?

Yes.

Do you consider the Bible as the inerrant word of God?

 

[daler]

Yes.

Do you consider the Bible as the inerrant word of God?

Steve,
. If only Jesus Himself had written down His own words, then we would have an inerrant word of God for that period. If Abraham had written down, or Noah, it would also be true for that period that we would have exactly what God Himself had revealed for sure to us.
. As I read my Bible, I read the Gospel “according to” Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and the specifics of their accounts differ somewhat, according to what they individually were able to recollect of the conversations which took place. One story is told in such a way that this person said this or that, and another story has them saying this or that with slightly different words, clearly according to someone’s memory.
. When we say “the Word of God”, it has several meanings. It can refer to Jesus as the “Word”. He, Himself, is the inerrant Word of God. I think that we agree on that.
. But when we say this collection of letters from Peter, Paul, James, and the Gospel, that these letters written by human hands recalling events and conversations are together to be called “the Word” of God and claim them to be inerrant, that seems to be a bit of a leap, although people commonly refer to the Bible (Book) as the Word of God.
. Certainly the Bible “contains” the Word of God, but also the words of men. Do you agree? And these men, according to their recollections, wrote these letters and what are called Gospels “according” to this man or that.
. This creates a problem for people who simply want a yes or no answer to the question as framed: “Is the Bible the Word of God”

. I would have a question for you if I may ask. I have read that there were some 400 letters or documents from which only so many were authenticated and compiled into the Book we commonly call the Bible. Do those other letters still exist?

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
. If only Jesus Himself had written down His own words, then we would have an inerrant word of God for that period. If Abraham had written down, or Noah, it would also be true for that period that we would have exactly what God Himself had revealed for sure to us.
. As I read my Bible, I read the Gospel “according to” Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and the specifics of their accounts differ somewhat, according to what they individually were able to recollect of the conversations which took place. One story is told in such a way that this person said this or that, and another story has them saying this or that with slightly different words, clearly according to someone’s memory.
. When we say “the Word of God”, it has several meanings. It can refer to Jesus as the “Word”. He, Himself, is the inerrant Word of God. I think that we agree on that.
. But when we say this collection of letters from Peter, Paul, James, and the Gospel, that these letters written by human hands recalling events and conversations are together to be called “the Word” of God and claim them to be inerrant, that seems to be a bit of a leap, although people commonly refer to the Bible (Book) as the Word of God.
. Certainly the Bible “contains” the Word of God, but also the words of men. Do you agree? And these men, according to their recollections, wrote these letters and what are called Gospels “according” to this man or that.
. This creates a problem for people who simply want a yes or no answer to the question as framed: “Is the Bible the Word of God”

. I would have a question for you if I may ask. I have read that there were some 400 letters or documents from which only so many were authenticated and compiled into the Book we commonly call the Bible. Do those other letters still exist?

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
. If only Jesus Himself had written down His own words, then we would have an inerrant word of God for that period. If Abraham had written down, or Noah, it would also be true for that period that we would have exactly what God Himself had revealed for sure to us.

And so you do not believe that God, through the power of Holy Spirit, can inspire people to write down exactly what God wants them to write down in order to convey his revelation?

As I read my Bible, I read the Gospel “according to” Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and the specifics of their accounts differ somewhat, according to what they individually were able to recollect of the conversations which took place. One story is told in such a way that this person said this or that, and another story has them saying this or that with slightly different words, clearly according to someone’s memory.

Each of these authors wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God uses their own intellects and life experiences in conveying his truth. They also had different audiences and so adjusted their writing to fit the audience. When one was is writing to educated Jews, one will place emphasis in one area, and if writing to Gentiles, the emphasis will be placed in another. The fact that there are variations in the writings proves that it was not a conspiracy of four people writing the same thing and making sure their stories are straight. They each convey the same truth, though written from different viewpoints and to different audiences. This is the case with all of Sacred Scripture. God used fallible people to convey an inerrant message. God is the actual author of Sacred Scripture.

But when we say this collection of letters from Peter, Paul, James, and the Gospel, that these letters written by human hands recalling events and conversations are together to be called “the Word” of God and claim them to be inerrant, that seems to be a bit of a leap.

Why is it a leap? Do you believe that God, in revealing himself to the world, is subject to human weakness and dependent upon man to get it right? One other thing to keep in mind. The Church grew and flourished for the nearly 400 years before the books of the Bible had been canonized. In other words, we were never dependent upon the written word for our faith. We possessed it in the teachings, liturgies and practices of the living Church.

Certainly the Bible “contains” the Word of God, but also the words of men. Do you agree?

No. I do not agree. The Church discerned those sacred texts that were the inspired word of God from those that were not. We have many beautiful writings, full of truth and wisdom, which were written by man. The Didache, or Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, for example. But the Church discerned that they were not inspired, even though what is written is true and beautiful. All of the writings of the early Church fathers would fall into this category and there is a reason for this. The Church does not keep proclaiming new revelation. Instead it guards and protects the one deposit of faith given by Christ to the Apostles and handed down to the Church. It guards it like a precious jewel. We are no longer looking for the jewel, we already possess it. We guard it as the only authentic revelation of God and warn people not to be fooled by the many forgeries out there.

And these men, according to their recollections, wrote these letters and what are called Gospels “according” to this man or that.
. This creates a problem for people who simply want a yes or no answer to the question as framed: “Is the Bible the Word of God”

Not really. It is clear that you do not believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God but rather believe that it has been tainted with the fallible words of men. What I don’t understand is how you then choose what is true and what is not true. If I believed what you believe about the Bible, I would never quote it because I could not be certain it was true.

I would have a question for you if I may ask. I have read that there were some 400 letters or documents from which only so many were authenticated and compiled into the Book we commonly call the Bible. Do those other letters still exist?

Yes, many of them do, maybe all of them.

 

[daler]

Steve, Thank you for your honest thoughts here. What jumped out at me when I read what you wrote was your use of the word “tainted”, and I wish to respond to that. I no wise to I think that the Gospels are “tainted”, so please don’t misunderstand me to that effect. And yes, clearly there is inspiration, for the Apostles were inspired, directly affected with their being in the presence of Christ. Who wouldn’t be?
. All I am saying is that we deserve the right to retain our own minds when reading the Gospel accounts and that God gave us individuality and minds that they might be used, not merely nodding our heads to some self-appointed authority.
. I like what you said about the four Gospels “not” being identical, as though they maybe sat down to get their story straight. Thats real good thinking on your part. I like that.

. I also think that part of the reason the Gospels have come down to us in the way they have is to stir the creative thoughts and reactions in each and every one of us, that we “wrestle” with the meanings, differences, etc. They are not a “fixed” absolute, but rather a “living” thing, which should evoke a living effect upon us.

. It would seem to me that God, in giving us all free will, allowed the use of that free will to express itself in the recording of the Gospels, and that He did not “control” the hands of every word spoken or letter written. There is much dialogue back and forth in the Bible as people dealt with the whole experience.

. I realize that you put a lot of stock in what the “Church fathers” said and apparently think that they were infallible. If that is your position, that is fine, but what I would add is that there runs the risk of committing the same errors that the Jewish fathers committed in not recognizing the signs of the times.
. Then, when the times change, or the “times of the Gentiles” are fulfilled, etc, and some from among you say that “Yes! The times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled.” that you would not automatically defer all thinking to those who hold certain positions of authority to examine this for you. Rather it is incumbent upon all men to examine reality for themselves.

. Even as the Letters were written to the many audiences, so too, reasoning is with different people, each invested with their own capacity to think and reason. If my reasoning offends you, am I to apologize? I mean not to offend, but to me, the greatest offense would be to imitate others blindly, having no thoughts of my own, which would essentially mean that I am dead.

 

[PRmerger]

Even as the Letters were written to the many audiences, so too, reasoning is with different people, each invested with their own capacity to think and reason. If my reasoning offends you, am I to apologize? I mean not to offend, but to me, the greatest offense would be to imitate others blindly, having no thoughts of my own, which would essentially mean that I am dead.

It is a heresy in Catholicism to imitate others blindly, daler.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

. I would have a question for you if I may ask. I have read that there were some 400 letters or documents from which only so many were authenticated and compiled into the Book we commonly call the Bible. Do those other letters still exist?

So I guess the claim that the bible is fully believed by bahai requires this sort of clarification in the future hmmm? What document out of those four hundred would you suppose is more realiable than the 27 books in the new testament? The ultimately ironic thing in your assetion of the bible ultimately being untrustworthy (except where the red letters are, i guess) is that you would to believe from the begining they got it wrong. The apostles from the very begining, those Christ had selected had it wrong, so why do bahai bother trying to say Paul or Luke really meant X as opposed to why?

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, Thank you for your honest thoughts here. What jumped out at me when I read what you wrote was your use of the word “tainted”, and I wish to respond to that. I no wise to I think that the Gospels are “tainted”, so please don’t misunderstand me to that effect.

If they are not tainted then you must believe that Thomas actually put his hand into the wounds of Christ subsequent to his resurrection and that Christ ate and drank with his disciples after entering the room through a locked door. Yes?

And yes, clearly there is inspiration, for the Apostles were inspired, directly affected with their being in the presence of Christ. Who wouldn’t be?

You misunderstand the meaning of the word “inspired” when applied to the human authors of Sacred Scripture. Yes, no doubt the Apostles and everyone else who encountered Christ was “inspired” by his words and his life. I get inspired by listening to Pope Francis or even someone on the radio, at times, but it is not at all the same thing.

We are speaking of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

"God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. ‘To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the wile he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.’" (CCC par 106)

All I am saying is that we deserve the right to retain our own minds when reading the Gospel accounts and that God gave us individuality and minds that they might be used, not merely nodding our heads to some self-appointed authority.

If one believes that the Sacred Scriptures are what God wanted written, and no more, then we must accept them as truth, when legitimately interpreted by a body under the protection of the same Holy Spirit that wrote the words through human authors; the Magisterium. The assumption that anyone can pick up the Bible and interpret it without the guidance of the Church is proven false by the evidence of the thousands upon thousands of Christian denominations each disagreeing with the meaning. This is a common accusation thrown at us; that we are somehow mindless robots following the directions of our master with not a thought of our own in our heads. Nothing could be further from the truth. A reading of only one or two of the many brilliant Catholic theologians and philosophers contradicts that notion completely. And I would hope that the Catholic posters on this thread also prove that notion false. Catholics comprise some of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known.

I also think that part of the reason the Gospels have come down to us in the way they have is to stir the creative thoughts and reactions in each and every one of us, that we “wrestle” with the meanings, differences, etc. They are not a “fixed” absolute, but rather a “living” thing, which should evoke a living effect upon us.

The truth revealed to us is a fixed absolute. The Church’s insight and understanding of that truth is a living thing because the Church is a living thing. As such it matures and grows in its understanding. But the Truth is absolute and is not really a thing, but rather a Person, the unchanging, eternal God.

 

[SteveVH]

Continued…

It would seem to me that God, in giving us all free will, allowed the use of that free will to express itself in the recording of the Gospels, and that He did not “control” the hands of every word spoken or letter written. There is much dialogue back and forth in the Bible as people dealt with the whole experience.

God did not possess the authors of Scripture and take over their bodies and use their hands to write. But what they did write conveyed the truth exactly as God intended. See the quote from the Catechism above.

I realize that you put a lot of stock in what the “Church fathers” said and apparently think that they were infallible.

I have never said the Church fathers were infallible. Some of them said things that the Church later refuted, not often, but it happened. The reason the early Church fathers are held in such high regard is because they reflect what the early Church believed. They are a great source to go to when one wonders whether or not the first believers, some of whom were contemporaries of the Apostles themselves, believed in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or, more to the point, whether or not they believed that Christ was raised bodily from the grave. They are important because they lived in relatively the same culture and time as the Apostles, or their students, and are a credible source of the early beliefs.

f that is your position, that is fine, but what I would add is that there runs the risk of committing the same errors that the Jewish fathers committed in not recognizing the signs of the times.

Why would we not recognize the signs of the times? From our position we would say that you have not recognized the fulfillment of all prophecy in Jesus Christ. You missed him and are still looking for someone else. We are only awaiting his glorious return when we will have a new heaven and a new earth and evil and sickness and death will be forever destroyed. Baha’u’llah just doesn’t fit what Christ gave us as the sign of the times.

Then, when the times change, or the “times of the Gentiles” are fulfilled, etc, and some from among you say that “Yes! The times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled.” that you would not automatically defer all thinking to those who hold certain positions of authority to examine this for you. Rather it is incumbent upon all men to examine reality for themselves.

Even as the Letters were written to the many audiences, so too, reasoning is with different people, each invested with their own capacity to think and reason. If my reasoning offends you, am I to apologize? I mean not to offend, but to me, the greatest offense would be to imitate others blindly, having no thoughts of my own, which would essentially mean that I am dead.

I am not at all offended with your reasoning and there is no need to apologize. What does offend me is the implication that those who believe in objective truth and seek to conform their lives to that truth are therefore mindless beings, having no thoughts of their own and therefore blindly follow.

There is a lake to which my family hikes each year. The lake lies above 13,000 feet in the San Juan mountains of Colorado and it is very difficult to find. When you begin there are a few trails. As you climb, the trail is barely visible and there is a great temptation to try and find an easier way. There are some trails that provide evidence that some people have chosen that way. Anyone with experience in making this trip knows that there is only one way and if you take off on one of the other trails you will end up in wind falls and encounter cliffs and soon find yourself in lots of trouble.

Now one is certainly free to make up his own mind and disregard the words of those who have gone before him and just make his own way. And that person will end up lost.

 

[Servant19]

Only within our experience in this world. Our bodies have not yet been glorified. Neither you, nor I have experienced what that means. Again, Servant, we didn’t make this up and then turn to the Scriptures to try and prove our point. The fact that we will have a glorified body capable of doing everything we have described was revealed to us by Christ; by his own example. That is why we believe it even if we do not fully understand it.

You, on the other hand, begin with a preconceived set of ideas which conflict with the revelation of Christ and then, rather than accepting this revelation, instead say that it is in error because it doesn’t comport with your preconceived beliefs. Better to conform our lives to the truth revealed to us than to conform the meaning of Scripture to our personal preferences.

By the way, would you mind answering my question on your attitude toward those Scriptures which directly conflict with your conclusions? Do you choose your own judgment over that of the Christian Scriptures?

As arthra suggested, I’m happy to move on to another topic, but in response to this Steve, I would like to point out that I am not following the explanations in the Bahai Writings with my recent posts.

So when I write this:

No a body that can appear and disappear at will, and that can enter through walls, and can literally fly, is not a physical body

…it’s not the pre-conceived ideas given to me by the Bahai Faith that I am asserting, it’s the pre-conceived ideas of human REALITY that I am following.

To put it simply I’m trying to understand more fully what this glorified body is, and why would God have us die, yet still survive as a soul (while also losing our humanity, (according to Catholicism) because we don’t have a body any more) and then “re-gain” our humanity by getting a new glorified body, so we can live with Jesus happily forever more?

Not once am I saying, “Well this can’t be true because Baha’u’llah said this and that…”

I hope the rationale behind my questions has become clear?

At the same time, I do wish to explore more fully the attributes of the soul versus the attributes of the glorified body. But maybe we can explore that on another thread…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Its not that God would have us die, he never intended that we die, its that mankind fell and by the sin of Adam (paul’s words not mine) death entered into the world, mankind was corrupted as with the entire creation with the taint of sin and Christ came down to restore us.

 

[SteveVH]

As arthra suggested, I’m happy to move on to another topic, but in response to this Steve, I would like to point out that I am not following the explanations in the Bahai Writings with my recent posts.

So when I write this:

…it’s not the pre-conceived ideas given to me by the Bahai Faith that I am asserting, it’s the pre-conceived ideas of human REALITY that I am following.

To put it simply I’m trying to understand more fully what this glorified body is, and why would God have us die, yet still survive as a soul (while also losing our humanity, (according to Catholicism) because we don’t have a body any more) and then “re-gain” our humanity by getting a new glorified body, so we can live with Jesus happily forever more?

Not once am I saying, “Well this can’t be true because Baha’u’llah said this and that…”

I hope the rationale behind my questions has become clear?

At the same time, I do wish to explore more fully the attributes of the soul versus the attributes of the glorified body. But maybe we can explore that on another thread…

Fair enough. I will only say that you are thinking in terms of this world of time and space and the physical realities which we experience in this life. This is something by which we are all hindered. As I have said before we are trying to comprehend the infinite world of the divine with very limited, finite minds.

We must acknowledge that there is a world of which we have no experience, of which we see fleeting glimpses and shadows. It is a world outside of our human experience. It cannot be measured or understood by the natural sciences or human reason. It is something of which we cannot know other than by direct, divine revelation. What has been revealed is the example of Christ, with a spiritual body capable of interacting with the physical world. Does it make sense within our human experience? No, it is not within our human experience. It is eternally above and beyond our natural world.

God bless.

 

[Little_Star_1]

No doubt you do have a relationship with God, Little Star, you seem very sincere and I have no doubt that it is a wonderful relationship. I have many non-Catholic friends who are people of great faith and live very Christian lives; better than many Catholics I know (including myself, at times ). This relationship is real and God surely blesses them. So please understand that I do not, in any way, doubt that you have a real and tangible relationship with God.

You should never loose the relationship you now have with him. However, as you say, you are not aware of the sacraments. Christ invites us to an even more profound relationship with him; a place where heaven and earth meet. It really can be likened to a spousal relationship. It’s nice when you first smile at each other, and then hold hands. It’s great to be around each other and you are truly happy in each other’s company.

But what happens when the two become one is beyond any other experience of each other. A complete, mutual self giving of one to the other. This is what happens when we receive Christ in the Eucharist. We become one with him in a way that is different than the other aspects of our relationship. He gives us himself entirely; his body, blood, soul and divinity and we submit our lives entirely to him (if we have the right disposition to receive him).

The sacraments are found in the Church, not outside of the Church. It is in the Church that we have the most meaningful encounter with Christ.

I misunderstood what you meant by sacraments. I have taken Holy Communion since I was a child and was baptized, at my insistence, when I was 12. What you describe in your paragraph on the sacraments, I experience when I pray some mornings. Sometimes I get that communion and sometimes I don’t. But, very often I do.

I disagree with your last statement. The experience of church for some, I am sure, provides futile ground for such encounters. However, I have felt the closest to him when I go to my inner room and seek him alone. I think it depends on the individual. I have had powerful experiences in church, as the power of those that believe being gathered can raise a level of the Spirit being felt by everyone. But, my most intimate encounters have been when I sought him on my own.

I think I some how gave the impression that I have never gone to church. There are ministers in my family going back to the 1800’s. It is just when I was around five, I got the impression that very few of the folks in church knew what it was to know God and were there for the ceremony and social activity more than seeking a union with God. It all depends on where you go to church, the leaders, the church community. You describe the idea conditions that should exist in a church.

Bless You

 

[Jcc1960]

You will find that studying that history will present a decisively pro Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental view of Christianity. But your prophet cannot restore unity between Christians because in his very giving of a different revelation wtih different teachings of that of Christianity, we will be inherently divided. A contradiction cannot be reconciled.

I understand your point of course. Baha’u’llah’s revelation will not set the clock back in time to the 4th century, when Rome became Christian, the Council of Nicea helped clarify and unify Christian belief, nor should it.

Baha’u’llah’s Revelation is the fulfillment of prophecies in nearly all the major religions, as such it shows God’s purpose of uniting all of mankind. That doesn’t mean the religions will go away, I am quite sure most of the Christian Churches, as well as Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Zoroastrian, and other faith communities will continue to claim that theirs is the only true way. Many will continue to do good works, and hopefully cooperate more with each other as they seek alleviate the ills of the world.

However, many of the followers of each of these faiths and others can, already have, and will continue to join in unity in Baha’u’llah, This shows the way forward for humanity, away from the darkness of separation and towards the light of the Heavenly Kingdom.

 

[arthra]

Yes.

Do you consider the Bible as the inerrant word of God?

Baha’is consider the Bible to be a sacred scripture…and inspired but we do not take it ***literally.

---

All the texts and teachings of the holy Testaments have intrinsic spiritual meanings. They are not to be taken literally. I, therefore, pray in your behalf that you may be given the power of understanding these inner real meanings of the Holy Scriptures and may become informed of the mysteries deposited in the words of the Bible so that you may attain eternal life and that your hearts may be attracted to the Kingdom of God.

~ Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 459

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR, can you please point out any Words from the Bahai Writings which are not the Truth?

Thanks

Below are some other words from the Baha’i writings which meet the above criterion.

Baha’is consider the Bible to be a sacred scripture…and inspired but we do not take it ***literally.

---

All the texts and teachings of the holy Testaments have intrinsic spiritual meanings. They are not to be taken literally. I, therefore, pray in your behalf that you may be given the power of understanding these inner real meanings of the Holy Scriptures and may become informed of the mysteries deposited in the words of the Bible so that you may attain eternal life and that your hearts may be attracted to the Kingdom of God.

~ Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 459

 

[Little_Star_1]

I understand your point of course. Baha’u’llah’s revelation will not set the clock back in time to the 4th century, when Rome became Christian, the Council of Nicea helped clarify and unify Christian belief, nor should it.

Baha’u’llah’s Revelation is the fulfillment of prophecies in nearly all the major religions, as such it shows God’s purpose of uniting all of mankind. That doesn’t mean the religions will go away, I am quite sure most of the Christian Churches, as well as Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Zoroastrian, and other faith communities will continue to claim that theirs is the only true way. Many will continue to do good works, and hopefully cooperate more with each other as they seek alleviate the ills of the world.

However, many of the followers of each of these faiths and others can, already have, and will continue to join in unity in Baha’u’llah, This shows the way forward for humanity, away from the darkness of separation and towards the light of the Heavenly Kingdom.

Here is my take on all such things. At the time of the crucifixion, it was believed that Jesus had been silenced. No one, including his disciples, could have predicted the magnitude of his influence and teachings. He was who he said he was and so the spiritual wakening of man went off in a new direction because He was the Son of God.

If Baha’u’llah is who he said he was, so it will be with him. It was 300 years, more or less, before Christ’s teachings were accepted into the mainstream by a man that had the political power to put the church in place and to back its continuation with might. Baha’u’llah’s teachings are still new to many. He announced his ideology regarding the Baha’i faith and his identity a little more 150 yrs ago. This is a bit more than half the time it took for Christianity to take hold. In other words, time will tell as God does defend that which is His.

 

[Jcc1960]

The Church interpretation is that there will be no new revelation except what had been revealed by Jesus. He said, “it is finished.” When you have new revelation then you have altered the picture altogether as interpreted by the Church.

And the Church’s interpretation was correct, up to the 6th century, when God spoke again and the Church rejected Him, and again in the 19th century.

Of course a new Revelation alters the picture and requires new interpretation just as it always has and always will.

Christian tradition is not the same with Jewish tradition. The OT is accepted by the Church because it supported the Church belief but the OT is not exactly the Jewish Bible. I am sure you know that the Church do not accept all Jewish scripture in toto but those that were relevant to support her belief.

We do not pretend that we accept Jewish interpretation of the scripture nor their tradition because in the main thing they are not compatible. Either one embraces Judaism or Christianity but not both.

One does not need to embrace Judaism or Christianity to see that the same God is worshiped by both.

Did Jesus or the Apostles tell the Jews that they worship a false God? No. Do Jews worship a false God? No, they worship the One True God, but they failed to recognize Christ, so their understanding of God is therefore lacking, although Jesus said to the Samaritan woman “salvation is from the Jews”.

It is impossible for you to accept both the Jewish and the Christian tradition and yet do not see the contradiction.

We follow neither Jewish nor Christian tradition, but it is possible to accept the validity of each within its own context. Christianity also fails to recognize Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah. That is unfortunate, but does not invalidate all of the truth that resides in the Church tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

And the Church’s interpretation was correct, up to the 6th century, when God spoke again and the Church rejected Him, and again in the 19th century.

To what are you referring?

 

[SteveVH]

However, I have felt the closest to him when I go to my inner room and seek him alone. I think it depends on the individual. I have had powerful experiences in church, as the power of those that believe being gathered can raise a level of the Spirit being felt by everyone. But, my most intimate encounters have been when I sought him on my own.

There is no doubt that the most intimate moments with God are found in the quiet, in the silence; in the inner room of our interior life. We forget that prayer is a conversation, one part of which is listening. It is hard to listen without outside distractions of any kind.

My favorite moment of silence is immediately after I have consumed the precious body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. He is present in a unique and wonderful way. It is the fulfillment of Christ’s prayer that we become one, as the Father is in him and he is in the Father. It is exactly what happens with the Eucharist. He is in us and we are in Him, in a very real though mystical way.

Church means something very different to a Catholic. It is where we are fed by the Word of God both in Scripture and in sacrament. When the bread and wine are consecrated we are standing under the cross and Christ’s blood is dripping on us. This isn’t a reenactment of Christ’s sacrifice, rather it is re-presented to us; the one, eternal sacrifice of Christ is made present and offered to the Father. It isn’t that I have to go to Mass. I must go to Mass and cannot imagine my life without it.

The sacraments are channels of God’s grace; of his mercy and kindness and they allow us to encounter him in a very real way, a way that cannot be experienced apart from the sacraments.

I think I some how gave the impression that I have never gone to church. There are ministers in my family going back to the 1800’s. It is just when I was around five, I got the impression that very few of the folks in church knew what it was to know God and were there for the ceremony and social activity more than seeking a union with God. It all depends on where you go to church, the leaders, the church community. You describe the idea conditions that should exist in a church.

Bless You

Pope John Paul, II said that the worst enemies of the Church are Christians. Our example can either bring one to faith or send them running. Yes, its a shame the way us humans behave sometimes. But that is why we need the Church and its sacraments.