BAHA'I thread III - feel free to ask of Baha'i any questions

[Servant19]

How do you get a confirmation of the Spirit?

40,000 pastors of various Christian denominations would say the same thing…all believing something different, led by their personal interpretation of the bible and the spirit. This is evidence that one can be misguided by trusting feelings and biblical interpretation divorced from the Church that wrote it. Catholics rely on the deposit of faith…the Written Word of God and Tradition as passed down from the apostles. We reject that which conflicts with this deposit of faith, no matter what the source…faith and reason not feelings is our guide.

This may well be true, you can reject as you wish dear friend Pork. The Pharisees said the same things when Jesus arrived and challenged their entire mess that they had made in God’s Kingdom.

Baha’u’llah has similarly come to challenge the religious institutions of past Dispensations.

“Let deeds not words be your adorning”

This stern rejection of the deeds of religious hierarchy being in any way different from the “official Church teaching” is the old world, old heaven and old earth that Baha’u’llah has come to overthrow.

No individual holds the keys to God’s land. God has created institutions to be infallible in this Day, since the acts and deeds of individuals have proven to be lamentably defective, especially by those individuals who cling onto old Traditions, when it is clear that God has Revealed Himself again through another Manifestation of God.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, Abdu’l-Baha is not giving a critical analysis of the meaning of original sin.

From my understanding he is giving a commentary on how the true meaning of certain spiritual concepts can be misunderstood. As Sen has pointed out, even by the early Church Fathers.

Precise reading of the Baha’i Writings is incumbent before one criticizes it and pats each other on the back in an ego-boosting tupperware party

In the same wiki link Sen pointed out, is this:

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “By the expression ‘He descended into Hell’, the Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil ‘who has the power of death’ (Hebrews 2:14). In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened Heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.”

“As the Catechism says, the word “Hell”—from the Norse, Hel; in Latin, infernus, infernum, inferi; in Greek, ᾍδης (Hades); in Hebrew, שאול (Sheol)—is used in Scripture and the Apostles’ Creed to refer to the abode of all the dead, whether righteous or evil, unless or until they are admitted to Heaven (CCC 633). This abode of the dead is the “Hell” into which the Creed says Christ descended. His death freed from exclusion from Heaven the just who had gone before him: “It is precisely these holy souls who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into Hell”, the Catechism states (CCC 633), echoing the words of the Roman Catechism, 1,6,3. His death was of no avail to the damned.”

As you can see, the Church has always understood two different places, both, unfortunately, referred to as “hell” in the English translation. The early Church Fathers do not contradict the Church’s teaching. You have just misunderstood what they are saying. Christ’s death was of no avail to the damned in hell. It was redemption for those who were waiting in “Abraham’s bosom”, and it is those who were freed by Christ.

 

[Servant19]

In the same wiki link Sen pointed out, is this:

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “By the expression ‘He descended into Hell’, the Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil ‘who has the power of death’ (Hebrews 2:14). In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened Heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.”

“As the Catechism says, the word “Hell”—from the Norse, Hel; in Latin, infernus, infernum, inferi; in Greek, ᾍδης (Hades); in Hebrew, שאול (Sheol)—is used in Scripture and the Apostles’ Creed to refer to the abode of all the dead, whether righteous or evil, unless or until they are admitted to Heaven (CCC 633). This abode of the dead is the “Hell” into which the Creed says Christ descended. His death freed from exclusion from Heaven the just who had gone before him: “It is precisely these holy souls who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into Hell”, the Catechism states (CCC 633), echoing the words of the Roman Catechism, 1,6,3. His death was of no avail to the damned.”

As you can see, the Church has always understood two different places, both, unfortunately, referred to as “hell” in the English translation. The early Church Fathers do not contradict the Church’s teaching. You have just misunderstood what they are saying. Christ’s death was of no avail to the damned in hell. It was redemption for those who were waiting in “Abraham’s bosom”, and it is those who were freed by Christ.

Either way, the word “hell” is used in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and if this means something other than the traditional meaning of hell (Hades) then the masses are getting confused by official teaching too, which is what Abdu’l-Baha was commenting on.

Harrowing Hell

“This is the Old English and Middle English term for the triumphant descent of Christ into hell (or Hades) between the time of His Crucifixion and His Resurrection, when, according to Christian belief, He brought salvation to the souls held captive there since the beginning of the world.”

newadvent.org/cathen/07143d.htm

It was unfair to judge Abdu’l-Baha on this passage…

 

[PRmerger]

It was unfair to judge Abdu’l-Baha on this passage…

I think a “manifestation of God” ought to be held to a higher standard. He ought to be able to get it right, not only with his moral life (3 or 4 wives notwithstanding), but also with his ability to convey doctrines of other religions.

 

[Servant19]

I think a “manifestation of God” ought to be held to a higher standard. He ought to be able to get it right, not only with his moral life (3 or 4 wives notwithstanding), but also with his ability to convey doctrines of other religions.

I think maybe you might be interested that Abdu’l-Baha is not a Manifestation of God.

Either way, he was giving absolutely the correct commentary on commonly held Christian belief, not “official Church teaching”

 

[PRmerger]

I think maybe you might be interested that Abdu’l-Baha is not a Manifestation of God.

My bad.

Either way, he was giving absolutely the correct commentary on commonly held Christian belief, not “official Church teaching”

So let’s use my error above and posit this scenario: let’s say a member reads my comment about Abdu’l-Baha being a manifestation of God and gives a commentary about that, waxing eloquently about all of the sins that Abdu’l-Baha did in his life and how he could therefore NOT be a manifestation of God…all of this based on an erroneous assumption about your religion…

how would you respond?

Would you say that this member "was giving absolutely the correct commentary on commonly held Bahai belief, not “official Bahai teaching”?

 

[Servant19]

My bad.

So let’s use my error above and posit this scenario: let’s say a member reads my comment about Abdu’l-Baha being a manifestation of God and gives a commentary about that, waxing eloquently about all of the sins that Abdu’l-Baha did in his life and how he could therefore NOT be a manifestation of God…all of this based on an erroneous assumption about your religion…

how would you respond?

Would you say that this member "was giving absolutely the correct commentary on commonly held Bahai belief, not “official Bahai teaching”?

If the generality of Baha’is believed that Abdu’l-Baha was a Manifestation of God, (and this was found written in the Baha’i Encyclopedia), and you made a comment saying “Most Baha’is believe that Abdu’l-Baha was a Manifestation of God. This is an erroneous belief”

I would respond with the wrords “Well done PR, there is a mistake in the baha’i Encyclopedia and most Baha’is have an incorrect belief in thinking that Abdu’-Baha is a Manifestation of God”

 

[daler]

OK, so miracles aside, what evidence convinces you that Bahai teachings are true?

Pork,
. If I may answer this in stages of my own experience, it might add perspective.

. My initial impressions of the principals of the Baha’i Faith back in 1980 all made sense to me, although I struggled a little bit with the non-participation in partisan politics. That was soon set aside with the understanding that anything as divisive as politics cannot hold the answers. So from a “rational” perspective, I found that the teachings made sense. These include:

. The equality of men and women
. The harmony of science and religion
. Independent investigation of truth
. Elimination of all forms of prejudice
. The essential oneness of God
. The oneness of humanity
. A spiritual solution to economic problems

. In the early years of studying the Faith, both the Writings of the Bab and Baha’u’llah struck me as deeply profound, far above human learning, and the doubtless fulfillment of numerous prophecies weighed heavily as “proofs” for the logical side of my brain.

. After awhile, the very “verses” themselves, the Writings of the Bab and Baha’u’llah, became clear and evident as proofs sufficient above all other forms of proof. We have within us a God-given capacity to recognize the Manifestation of God, and our soul can respond to the “resonance” of the Word of God.

. There are also prophecies made by Baha’u’llah which have been fulfilled, and these are considered as “proofs”, as well.

 

[daler]

My bad.

So let’s use my error above and posit this scenario: let’s say a member reads my comment about Abdu’l-Baha being a manifestation of God and gives a commentary about that, waxing eloquently about all of the sins that Abdu’l-Baha did in his life and how he could therefore NOT be a manifestation of God…all of this based on an erroneous assumption about your religion…

how would you respond?

Abdul Baha was free of any sins, yet He is the first to state that He is not a Manifestation of God, as some early Baha’is thought, their impressions being made by being in His presence, so Christ-like was He in their eyes. He is the Exemplar of every virtue and was educated by the Divine Educator Himself, Baha’u’llah, Who appointed Him as the Center of the Covenant, to Whom all Baha’is turned after Him, preserving the unity of the Baha’i community as One, avoiding schism commonly associated with every previous religion.

 

[SteveVH]

Either way, the word “hell” is used in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and if this means something other than the traditional meaning of hell (Hades) then the masses are getting confused by official teaching too, which is what Abdu’l-Baha was commenting on.

No one who listens to the Church misunderstands. I have just given you the church teaching on this subject and is simply dismissed. We do not believe what Abdu’l-Baha says we believe. Lets take a second look:

"But the mass of the Christians believe that, as Adam ate of the forbidden tree, He sinned in that He disobeyed, and that the disastrous consequences of this disobedience have been transmitted as a heritage and have remained among His descendants. Hence Adam became the cause of the death of humanity./!]

We would agree with everything written here. What was transmitted to Adam and Eve’s descendants was both physical and spiritual death; the loss of eternal life. The sin of Adam and Eve changed human nature. Thus, we are born lacking something; eternal life. Through Baptism, we regain the eternal life meant for us in the beginning.

"This explanation is unreasonable and evidently wrong, for it means that all men, even the Prophets and the Messengers of God, without committing any sin or fault, but simply because they are the posterity of Adam, have become without reason guilty sinners, and until the day of the sacrifice of Christ were held captive in hell in painful torment

.

This is not the opinion of the Christian masses nor the Church. This is Abdu’l-Baha’s own fallacious understanding which is not the Christian teaching. I have given you the Christian teaching. He has done nothing more than create a straw man and shown his ignorance of Christian doctrine. We do not believe that the just who were waiting to be redeemed were “held captive in hell in painful torment”.

It was unfair to judge Abdu’l-Baha on this passage…

I don’t think so at all. He is making an erroneous statement concerning Christian doctrine and should be called on it.

 

[Servant19]

No one who listens to the Church misunderstands. I have just given you the church teaching on this subject and is simply dismissed. We do not believe what Abdu’l-Baha says we believe. Lets take a second look:

We would agree with everything written here. What was transmitted to Adam and Eve’s descendants was both physical and spiritual death; the loss of eternal life. The sin of Adam and Eve changed human nature. Thus, we are born lacking something; eternal life. Through Baptism, we regain the eternal life meant for us in the beginning.

This is not the opinion of the Christian masses nor the Church. This is Abdu’l-Baha’s own fallacious understanding which is not the Christian teaching. I have given you the Christian teaching. He has done nothing more than create a straw man and shown his ignorance of Christian doctrine. We do not believe that the just who were waiting to be redeemed were “held captive in hell in painful torment”.

I don’t think so at all. He is making an erroneous statement concerning Christian doctrine and should be called on it.

Oh I’m with you now. So you are saying that the hell where people went to BEFORE Jesus’ salvific acts was a different hell to what is describe in the Catechism?
*
"1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire.“617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”*

 

[SteveVH]

Oh I’m with you now. So you are saying that the hell where people went to BEFORE Jesus’ salvific acts was a different hell to what is describe in the Catechism?

The Catechism describes both and the citations given from the Catechism have already explained this. Did you even read them? One more time, the expanded version:

*"The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection. This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.

Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him."* (CCC par 632-633)

And with that, a good night to all.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Yes - God must do it - We beleive God has done just that, as promised, but that is what we believe.

It is worth considering that this is how we can come to terms with this God’s creation. Opposites are part of creation and Gods Creation is Perfect. Take away the extremes and Free Will would be no more.

Free will has the ability to traverse the full spectrum, If there is no ability to sink to the depths of evil actions there is no ability to reach the peak of Purity, this is a gift if we can come to terms with it.

This world will always have extremes, but now we have the required instructions on how to live together in peace. There is at least another 500,000 years of this Earth in front of us, the next Prophet will be here after the expiration of a full 1000 years.

This world is here to purify our souls, we are here to be born again. We must come to terms with the flesh and be born into the Spirit so the second death does not overtake us.

Regards Tony

You believe God has already destroyed all evil? Have you looked around?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

This has been foretold

The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System – the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed. (Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 136)

“The world is in travail, and its agitation waxeth day by day. Its face is turned towards waywardness and unbelief. Such shall be its plight, that to disclose it now would not be meet and seemly. Its perversity will long continue. And when the appointed hour is come, there shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake. Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody”. (Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh LXI)

"We desire but the good of the world and the happiness of the nations; yet they deem Us a stirrer up of strife and sedition worthy of bondage and banishment… That all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled – what harm is there in this?.. Yet so it shall be; these fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the ‘Most Great Peace’ shall come… Yet do We see your kings and rulers lavishing their treasures more freely on means for the destruction of the human race than on that which would conduce to the happiness of mankind… These strifes and this bloodshed and discord must cease, and all men be as one kindred and one family… Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind… (Baha’u’llah, The Proclamation of Baha’u’llah)

We can be all part of this, or we can choose not to be. I would rather be Optimistic and thing yes man can do this! God has said it will be so.

Regards Tony

You would rather have hope in mankind building the tower of Babel (which is your ultimate dream and fantasy) than in God it seems.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignatian,
. It would seem to me that by the same standards you are judging Baha’u’llah that clearly you have regarded Jesus as an utter failure. There is no way around this for you. You profess to believe in One Who has failed to cure humanity of its inherent ills.

. If you are at all familiar with the various prophecies in the Bible which speak of the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth, the Day of the Lord, and that “Of the increase of “His” government there shall be no end”, then you know that it is coming eventually, right?

. Do I “want to see it?” You betcha!

Except I’m only applying bahai standards, you seem to believe things have changed with each manifestation, im only saying things have remained the same. Jesus however unlike your prophet is quite clear, the narrow gate rather than the wide gate is the true path and few find it. I expect most of the world to be evil I expect Christians who are sinful and struggle with sin to repent daily for we are not perfect and should never consider ourselves perfect or capable of creating a utopia. Christ did what he did, he destroyed death via the ressurection and we await his return, not a pretender to Christ’s title. I look for the great and terrible day of Christ’s coming, and if your prophet has fulfilled all that then I suggest that Jesus was a liar when he described his return. Of Course Jesus is not the liar, but someone else is.

 

[Servant19]

The Catechism describes both and the citations given from the Catechism have already explained this. Did you even read them? One more time, the expanded version:

*"The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection. This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.

Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him."* (CCC par 632-633)

And with that, a good night to all.

Have a good sleep Steve

I think you are assuming that Abdul-Baha does not know what the reality of hell is

I did read the Catechism you quoted. As far as I can see, your objection is that there is no “painful torment” for all the souls that were awaiting in Hades for Jesus’ salvation.

The reality is that where it says in the Catechism “those who are there are deprived of the vision of God” EQUALS “painful torment”

I can think of no worse torment than to be deprived of the vision of God, my Creator and Beloved, whether I was in Abraham’s bosom or not.

 

[Servant19]

You believe God has already destroyed all evil?

Yes, it is found in the Administrative Order of Baha’u’llah

“THE world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.”

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Abdu’l-Baha writes:

Bahais can sometimes be a little unhandy in how they express their optimism, and give people the wrong impression. In fact this is true of all religious communities, which is why, in Sociology of Religion, Research Methods we were taught to feed our first-impression reading of what was being said back to the speaker for confirmation.

The Bahai teaching about a federal world government and other aspects of a truly civilized world civilization does not in fact include the Bahais at the top of the pile judging others. Sorry if you were given that impression

It seems you have a better grasp on your own religion than others. But I still maintain that the ultimate goal of the bahai religion is impossible and that even if you were to have your Utopia (for we should not mince words, thats what it is) evil will still prevail. Corruption would seep into the highest levels, as in any government, abortion would still exist, sexual sin would still exist, so my basic question has not been answered. As long as human beings exist there will be evil and it seems believe that evil is an ever present reality, there will not be a time when there are no tears, when Christ’s return is like a trumpet blast that every will know about, when sin and evil will have no more room in this world to live, when there is a new heaven and a new earth. The basic question of mine remains, when will God put this world to rights? Will he? Or is a one world universal government the only solution bahais offer?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Yes, it is found in the Administrative Order of Baha’u’llah

“THE world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.”

In order to maintain that evil has been destroyed you would have to say evil is an illusion. Do you say that now? Why should I believe evil has been destroyed and God has already put the world to rights?

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

In other words it would be foolish of me to criticize the Five Precepts Buddhism on the basis of those who do not agree or have a misguided notion concerning them.

Absolutely spot on Steve.

Think about it