This is the worst sort of religion, in which eternal and unchanging truth is replaced with the need to get along with the world which is changing constantly. One of the principle ideas about God in Christianity is that he does not change, truth does not change, it is not relative, it is an absolute fact. If we embrace a theology which says that everyone 1000 years fundamental truths change (which is the only way I think bahai can interpret history and say they are all the same religion) we will only be embracing something which could be false tommorow if God so arbitrarily decides to change it.
How gnostic.
Ignatian, why did you, as a child, embrace the truth of drinking the mothers milk, which today is undeniably false for you today. Do you still drink mothers milk?
Apologies Robyn. My day is busy right now. If no one responds in the next 5-6 hours I will attempt a response then
I think the difference between my view is that I see the mother’s milk which has been drunk as an unalterable reality whereas you see it as something to be interpreted differently not based on any context or ideas at the time, but rather your own modern ideas projected back on to the past. This is exactly what bahai do with any religion that they claim they are the successor of. That religion cannot be allowed to be interpreted by its direct followers (ie the ante nicene fathers) or even wtihin the historical context of the time. Rather it must be interpreted based on the words of a persian man who wasn’t even familiar (at least on an indepth and sophsiticated level) with what those whom proclaimed the religion he wrote against believed.
Unfortunately, this is exactly the opposite of what St. Paul describes, my friend.
Thank you Servant, I look forward to it.Apologies Robyn. My day is busy right now. If no one responds in the next 5-6 hours I will attempt a response then
I hope that we can also continue our exploration with Randy as well
Your analogy doesn’t quite work actually. The type of food we use as nutrition changes as we age, obviously. But the fundamental nature of our body functions do not change. There’s no mutation or reversal as we advance from milk to meat. It’s a natural progression.
) Those built off the ones that came previous without denying what came before.Both are true, depending on the meaning of “universe” : the physical universe of the astronomers apparently had a beginning and will end. Yet late Judaism and Christianity teach that eternal life is possible. Baha’u’llah says that God’s creation has neither beginning nor end. God is eternally the creator, therefore creation is eternal. Abdu’l-Baha however says that everything which is composed, decomposes. If you wriggle around a bit you will find a place from which both Genesis and eternal life can be seen at the same time.
Hi Robyn, phew what a long day
You nailed it. It is called doublethink; the capacity to hold two or more contradictory views simultaneously as true. Amazing what the human mind can accept. A = not A. It flies in the face of reason and rational thought.Your analogy doesn’t quite work actually. The type of food we use as nutrition changes as we age, obviously. But the fundamental nature of our body functions do not change. There’s no mutation or reversal as we advance from milk to meat. It’s a natural progression.
This is not the case with the Baha’i faith if we accept all the religious leaders of the world as true manifestations of the same God. What we see is more mutation, for lack of a better word, and not growth.
Moses One personal God. The universe is not eternal, but was created by God. Human beings have a soul and made in the image of God. (Gen. 1-3; Deut. 6:4; etc.).
Krishna Mix of polytheism and impersonal pantheism. The universe is eternal. (Complete reversal of Moses)
Zoroaster One good god and one evil god (religious dualism).
Buddha God not relevant; essentially agnostic, the soul does not exist.
Confucius Polytheistic.
Jesus Christ One personal God who does have a Son (Mark 12:29; John 4:24; 5:18-19;etc.) Human beings have souls (contradicting both Buddha and Confucius)
Muhammad One personal God who cannot have a Son. (Contradicting Jesus)
**Baha’u’llah ** God and the universe, which is an emanation of God, are co-eternal. (reversal of Moses and Jesus and Mohammed)
How could it be possible that when Moses was around, the universe had a definite beginning, but then when Krishna comes, the universe is eternal. Both can’t be true. Either one is right and one is wrong. That’s not progression.
And no, just so we’re clear, these are not comparable to the legitimate doctrinal developments of the Old Covenant and New. (I can see that coming
There was never and has never been complete reversals and contradictions about the fundamental truths about the nature of God and the universe, as we can see clearly there are if we accept all these different religious leaders as manifestations of the same God. This makes God seem very confused.
With all due respect, this is illogical nonsense. To be created necessarily implies that something had a beginning and therefore cannot be eternal. God, who has no beginning nor end, must be prior to all things created or they could not have been created. Only God is eternal, nothing and no one else. And this eternal God is Jesus Christ of whom the Scriptures say: “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” (John 1:3)
A religion has rights to change the practices of ancient, established religions simply because it is new? Excuse me? Jesus Christ, the Son of God brought the truth concerning divorce, he didn’t change its meaning. He simply forbade it. He also gave us the New and Everlasting Covenant in his blood. We no longer needed the old covenant. He fulfilled the old covenant.
Thank God for brief responses!Hi Robyn, phew what a long day
I will attempt to give a brief response and if there is any questions, I am more than happy to address them as best I can.
First of all, let me state that if we were to be absolutely honest, we would approach the resurrection narrative as the scholars around the globe approach it. That is, there is no “absolute” knowledge out there as to EXACTLY what happened.
From, my personal perspective, I can totally understand when reading the narrative in the Gospel of John for example, that this is indeed an incredibly convincing and detailed account proving beyond a shadow of doubt that the resurrection was a physical one. I am still not convinced that a glorified body is the same as a natural, physical body. I prefer to call it a resurrection into a glorified body myself, but I digress.
The Gospel of John, the 4th Gospel, contrasted with the narrative seen in the original Gospel of Mark shows marked differences, most specifically the amount of attention to detail to PROVE a physical resurrection seen in John, which is absent in the original Mark.
To me, what was some very private “subjective” visions of the Apostles, stooped in deep symbolism was collated towards the end of the first century and written up as “objective” accounts, and the development of a “resurrection” story came about. On the basis of this, stories were created regarding an empty tomb, etc etc.
This theory is ratified by many New Testament scholars. I like Tom Wright, and here is a short video explaining his understanding on how the narrative “developed” over the course of the first century, and how it culminated in John’s Gospel to RESPOND to the attacks being made to the nascent Christian Faith by the Jews, who laid tremendous emphasis on the importance of the BODY, and how a crucified Jesus, “bodily defunct” could not possibly be even fathomed as being the Messiah.
Here’s the video: (especially listen to what he says after 4 mins)
youtube.com/watch?v=Fki5wq48fpc
I also have a liking towards some of James M Robinson’s theories on the resurrection, together with Geza Vermes, who indicates that as the evangelists do not mention appearances to people outside the circle of his close followers Vermes takes these to imply that the Resurrection was not meant to be an extension of public ministry. In essence, the “Resurrection becomes a purely spiritual concept without requiring any accompanying physical reality.” The idea of spiritual resurrection accounts for the visions, but the Jewish bond of body and spirit spurred the empty tomb and physicality of the body in John and Luke. In appealing to the mystic tradition, Vermes contends that this view is no different from crosscultural experiences.
I truly believe that the Bible is a collection of spiritual Truths rather than historical facts. At the very least, the majority of New Testament scholars would agree that the historicity of large parts of the Bible is “under review” and “a work in progress”
Hope this is of some assistance on my personal views as a Baha’i. These are not “official” Baha’i views.
The official Baha’i view does not delve into so much detail as I have here, the focus of the Baha’i Faith is Baha’u’llah and His conveyance of the Will of God for humans in this age, not Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or any Founder of previous Major Global Religions.
God bless
p.s Randy, I do wish to explore further on the points you raised. I will attempt to get to them tomorrow. Night y’all
(Hindu, Bhagavad Gita (Edwin Arnold tr))(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 9)(The Zend-Avesta, Avesta Fragments)(Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveller's Narrative, p. 4)And a dog has four legs, and a horse has four legs, but a dog is not a horse. You absolutely refuse to acknowledge the blatant contradictions which even the various religions you claim to espouse recognize amongst each other. Why do you feel the need to claim all things as true when they clearly, by the laws of logic and reason, cannot be true?