Contact With Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith

[PRmerger]

And also indeed what you have accepted as truth…let it be.

Ask me a question, arthra, about my faith, and I’d be happy to dialogue with you.

Do you not admit, friend, that you have obfuscated on what it is the disciples did after receiving the vision?

Why is that?

 

[RonPrice]

I just dropped in to this site after being away for some time. I’m amazed at the dialogue that has been generated from my original post. There are too many points raised for me to add more. I’ll add a post today, FYI, the interests of those who once saw the musical Godspell.-Ron​

GODSPELL
More Than 40 Years On…….

---

---

Godspell is a musical by Stephen Schwartz and a book by John-Michael Tebelak.1 It opened off Broadway on 17 May 1971, and has played in various touring companies and revivals many times since, including a 2011 revival which played on Broadway from 13 October 2011 to 24 June 2012. When Godspell first opened I was in my last month of teaching in Canada before leaving to teach in South Australia in July 1971.

Several cast albums have been released over the years and one of its songs, "Day by Day” from the original cast album, reached #13 on the Billboard pop singles chart in the summer of 1972. By the summer of 1972 I had my hands full as a high-school teacher in the steel-port city of Whyalla South Australia. I was also the secretary of the local Baha’i community, a husband in a marriage that would end in 1973, and a guitarist in the Whyalla folk club. This musical and its songs were far-out on the periphery of my life, occupied as I was every waking moment with the above roles-tasks.

The play’s title is derived from the Old English word gōdspell, or good news, the root of the modern word gospel.-Ron Price with thanks to 1***Wikipedia ***and 7TWO TV, 7 .2.'13, 2:00-4:00 p.m.

There is so much for the punter
in popular and high culture, local,
regional, national & international
culture; you pick-&-choose from
the Niagara Falls of stuff that just
keeps coming at you from print &
electronic media….This afternoon
was Godspell which has been out &
about for more than 40 years while
I’ve been in Australia going from
young adulthood to late adulthood
and, maybe, old-age, time-will-tell.

This musical had a Protestant edge:
no Peter, that first among equals &
core-source of the Petrine doctrine.1

1 Some Christians hold that Simon Peter was the most prominent of the Apostles, called the Prince of the Apostles and favored by Jesus of Nazareth. As such, it is argued that Peter held the first place of honor and authority. In addition, in Catholicism, it is also argued this primacy should extend in perpetuity to the Pope over other bishops throughout the Church through the doctrine of Apostolic succession.

This doctrine is also known as the Primacy of Simon Peter or the Petrine Primacy (from the Latin Petrus for “Peter”) but it is more formally known as the Primacy of the Catholic Pontiff. A number of traditions, most notably Catholic, hold that Simon Peter (also called Saint Peter or Cephas) was the first Bishop of Antioch, as well as the first Bishop of Rome. Critical scholars point out, however, that bishops in the early Christian church probably did not perform their functions and roles in the manner that evolved in later centuries.

Ron Price
7/2/’13.

 

[Izdaari]

I had a good friend who was Baha’i. Haven’t seen him for years though.

 

[Megan7]

I just dropped in to this site after being away for some time. I’m amazed at the dialogue that has been generated from my original post. There are too many points raised for me to add more. I’ll add a post today, FYI, the interests of those who once saw the musical Godspell.-Ron​

GODSPELL
More Than 40 Years On…….

---

---

Godspell is a musical by Stephen Schwartz and a book by John-Michael Tebelak.1 It opened off Broadway on 17 May 1971, and has played in various touring companies and revivals many times since, including a 2011 revival which played on Broadway from 13 October 2011 to 24 June 2012. When Godspell first opened I was in my last month of teaching in Canada before leaving to teach in South Australia in July 1971.

Several cast albums have been released over the years and one of its songs, "Day by Day” from the original cast album, reached #13 on the Billboard pop singles chart in the summer of 1972. By the summer of 1972 I had my hands full as a high-school teacher in the steel-port city of Whyalla South Australia. I was also the secretary of the local Baha’i community, a husband in a marriage that would end in 1973, and a guitarist in the Whyalla folk club. This musical and its songs were far-out on the periphery of my life, occupied as I was every waking moment with the above roles-tasks.

The play’s title is derived from the Old English word gōdspell, or good news, the root of the modern word gospel.-Ron Price with thanks to 1***Wikipedia ***and 7TWO TV, 7 .2.'13, 2:00-4:00 p.m.

There is so much for the punter
in popular and high culture, local,
regional, national & international
culture; you pick-&-choose from
the Niagara Falls of stuff that just
keeps coming at you from print &
electronic media….This afternoon
was Godspell which has been out &
about for more than 40 years while
I’ve been in Australia going from
young adulthood to late adulthood
and, maybe, old-age, time-will-tell.

This musical had a Protestant edge:
no Peter, that first among equals &
core-source of the Petrine doctrine.1

1 Some Christians hold that Simon Peter was the most prominent of the Apostles, called the Prince of the Apostles and favored by Jesus of Nazareth. As such, it is argued that Peter held the first place of honor and authority. In addition, in Catholicism, it is also argued this primacy should extend in perpetuity to the Pope over other bishops throughout the Church through the doctrine of Apostolic succession.

This doctrine is also known as the Primacy of Simon Peter or the Petrine Primacy (from the Latin Petrus for “Peter”) but it is more formally known as the Primacy of the Catholic Pontiff. A number of traditions, most notably Catholic, hold that Simon Peter (also called Saint Peter or Cephas) was the first Bishop of Antioch, as well as the first Bishop of Rome. Critical scholars point out, however, that bishops in the early Christian church probably did not perform their functions and roles in the manner that evolved in later centuries.

Ron Price
7/2/’13.

 

[flameburns623]

I miss PlanetBaha’i, the last really-good Baha’i webforum of which I am aware.

Many of the writings of Baha’u’llah, Abdul Baha, and Shoghi Effendi are beautiful and thought-inspiring. Someone–it might well have been Arthra who has posted in this very thread, gifted me a pocket-sized collection of Baha’i prayers and meditations which I have treasured for nigh on eight or more years. Thanks once more, whomever tendered such a kind gift.

All beauty, all truth, is God’s, and though I did not ultimately become persuaded of the teachings of the Baha’i Faith, yet there is much in that tradition to honor and about which to dialogue.

God’s blessings!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The problem with bahai is that in taking parts from Christianity, islam and whatever major religion its founder could choose from, it has fundamentally distorted the position of those religions and tried to reconcile them when all tis done is create a new religion which divides even more. The ultimate irony of bahai is that the religion itself caused more division.

For instance bahai deny ressurection of Jesus, something the Christian cannot do and Bahai claim their prophet superior to Jesus another impossible thing for Christians to accept.

 

[RonPrice]

For a link to more discussion about the Baha’i Faith and the physical resurrection go to: bahaiforums.com/beliefs/9094-whats-position-bahai-faith-about-resurrection-jesus-christ.html

For a link on the Baha’i view of Jesus and Baha’u’llah go to: bahai.us/2012/04/06/how-bahais-view-christ/

For a link that states that the Baha’i Faith is not syncretistic: bahai-library.com/stockman_bahai_syncretism​

After nearly two years this thread seems alive and well. The issues raised will go on being discussed, I believe, for centuries to come in the same way that Christian teachings vis-a-vis Judaism and the Return of Christ have been discussed. The Jews have not been persuaded and that is why they are Jews. Millions of Christians will not be pesuaded by the Baha’is and that is one reason they will remain Christians…and the discussion will go on and on. Seeya…lateRon

 

[Badi1919]

In this world of chaos and corruption. Bahaism is also a playing its role, it is creating more discord and more division in the humanity.

For more information on this cult please see :
http://bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com
bahaism.blogspot.com
sectsofbahais.com
bahai-scandals.blogspot.com

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Honestly I don’t know how a group that ultimately wants a one world government yet cannot participate in politics or make any active effort to convert people can be a threat or change the world. They have a small influence and they will never be a major influence in any realm of religion, politics and etc.

 

[arthra]

I miss PlanetBaha’i, the last really-good Baha’i webforum of which I am aware.

Many of the writings of Baha’u’llah, Abdul Baha, and Shoghi Effendi are beautiful and thought-inspiring. Someone–it might well have been Arthra who has posted in this very thread, gifted me a pocket-sized collection of Baha’i prayers and meditations which I have treasured for nigh on eight or more years. Thanks once more, whomever tendered such a kind gift.

All beauty, all truth, is God’s, and though I did not ultimately become persuaded of the teachings of the Baha’i Faith, yet there is much in that tradition to honor and about which to dialogue.

God’s blessings!

Flameburns…

Thanks for your post!

Planet Baha’i has continued and is still a good place to discuss the Faith… Who ever presented you with a collection of Baha’i Prayers deserves the credit…off hand I can’t recall presenting you with one.

 

[arthra]

The problem with bahai is that in taking parts from Christianity, islam and whatever major religion its founder could choose from, it has fundamentally distorted the position of those religions and tried to reconcile them when all tis done is create a new religion which divides even more. The ultimate irony of bahai is that the religion itself caused more division.

For instance bahai deny ressurection of Jesus, something the Christian cannot do and Bahai claim their prophet superior to Jesus another impossible thing for Christians to accept.

Ignatian Philo,

Thanks for your post… The Baha’i faith had it’s origins in Iran and Iraq… Baha’is do accept the Bible as inspired and you will find citations of the Gospels in the Baha’i Writings… It’s true that Baha’is believe the resurrection of Jesus was spiritual rather than physical.

We do not claim to be Christians.

Baha’is believe in the same spiritual origin of the major world religions … that we all teach the same spiritual values and that God is one. All the Manifestations of God are also one but appeared at various times to address the needs of humanity… Baha’u’llah is only the most recent Manifestation.

 

[arthra]

Honestly I don’t know how a group that ultimately wants a one world government yet cannot participate in politics or make any active effort to convert people can be a threat or change the world. They have a small influence and they will never be a major influence in any realm of religion, politics and etc.

Ignatian Philo thanks again for your post!

Baha’is do believe that many issues facing humanity today can be resolved by a representative world parliament and an international court of arbitration… Toa degree there has been progress toward achieving these ends as there is currently the United Nations and an International Court of Arbitration (ICC).

Baha’u’llah while an exile and a prisoner of the Ottoman Sultan addressed Tablets to the rulers of the day (around 1867) such as Emperor Napoleon III, Emp. Franz Joseph Hapsburg, Kaiser Wilhelm etc. urging them to reduce armaments and set upa world parliament. These Tablets are contained in a published book “Summons of the Lord of Hosts”.

It’s true Baha’is are non-partisan and urge people to rise above partisanship… We are not involved in partisan politics. The reason is we value unity in our community as opposed to the acrimony and polarization of partisanship.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignatian Philo thanks again for your post!

Baha’is do believe that many issues facing humanity today can be resolved by a representative world parliament and an international court of arbitration… Toa degree there has been progress toward achieving these ends as there is currently the United Nations and an International Court of Arbitration (ICC).

Baha’u’llah while an exile and a prisoner of the Ottoman Sultan addressed Tablets to the rulers of the day (around 1867) such as Emperor Napoleon III, Emp. Franz Joseph Hapsburg, Kaiser Wilhelm etc. urging them to reduce armaments and set upa world parliament. These Tablets are contained in a published book “Summons of the Lord of Hosts”.

It’s true Baha’is are non-partisan and urge people to rise above partisanship… We are not involved in partisan politics. The reason is we value unity in our community as opposed to the acrimony and polarization of partisanship.

Thank God a one world government isn’t in control.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignatian Philo,

Thanks for your post… The Baha’i faith had it’s origins in Iran and Iraq… Baha’is do accept the Bible as inspired and you will find citations of the Gospels in the Baha’i Writings… It’s true that Baha’is believe the resurrection of Jesus was spiritual rather than physical.

We do not claim to be Christians.

Baha’is believe in the same spiritual origin of the major world religions … that we all teach the same spiritual values and that God is one. All the Manifestations of God are also one but appeared at various times to address the needs of humanity… Baha’u’llah is only the most recent Manifestation.

I realise you claim the bible but you ultimately have to dismiss it when convenient. You cannot accept for instance that Jesus is the creator of the world of universe as a bahai, despite the apostle John Clearly saying so.

And no, the religions of the world do not have the same spiritual origins. Christianity did not arise out of a platonic gnosticism which viewed the spirit as superior to the physical world for instance. Bahais have adopted such an idea. We fundamentally contradict each other and this is only explained that God does not originate all of these contradictory faiths.

A contradiction cannot exist. Bahais cannot say certain parts of the quran are correct nor can they say that of the bible because they realise those parts of teh quran and bible are wrong as per their religion.

 

[smaneck]

The problem with bahai is that in taking parts from Christianity, islam and whatever major religion its founder could choose from,

Not really. Keep in mind that Iran, where the Baha’i Faith was born, is 95% Shi’ite. Synthetic religions are not born in monolithic cultures. One of the early posters who insisted that the Baha’i Faith is to Islam as Christianity is to Judaism was essentially correct.

For instance bahai deny ressurection of Jesus,

More precisely, we don’t see the Resurrection as physical. Personally, I’m inclined to accept the scholarship of James M. Robinson on this subject.

Bahai claim their prophet superior to Jesus another impossible thing for Christians to accept.

That we do not do. Baha’u’llah writes:
"These Lights have proceeded from but one Source, and these fruits are the fruits of one Tree. Thou canst discern neither difference nor distinction among them. "

 

[smaneck]

Honestly I don’t know how a group that ultimately wants a one world government yet cannot participate in politics or make any active effort to convert people can be a threat or change the world. They have a small influence and they will never be a major influence in any realm of religion, politics and etc.

By not making efforts to convert people what we mean is that we do not provide any coercion or inducements for people to convert. Obviously, Baha’is are eager to share their beliefs. As for not participating in politics what Baha’is avoid is partisan politics. We do take stands on specific issues, especially human rights issues. And we are also active in social and economic development projects. As to what we will become, who knows? The Baha’i Faith is less than 170 years old. When Christianity was only a 170 years old it had little influence as well. In fact at the time of Constantine’s conversion in the fourth century only 5% of the Roman Empire was Christianized.

 

[smaneck]

I realise you claim the bible but you ultimately have to dismiss it when convenient. You cannot accept for instance that Jesus is the creator of the world of universe as a bahai, despite the apostle John Clearly saying so.

Actually we do. We believe that all creation comes from the Manifestation in His Universal aspect. Abdu’l-Baha says:

“In the Gospel it is said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” 3 Then it is evident and clear that Christ did not reach to the station of Messiahship and its perfections at the time of baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the likeness of a dove. Nay, the Word of God from all eternity has always been, and will be, in the exaltation of sanctification.”

And no, the religions of the world do not have the same spiritual origins. Christianity did not arise out of a platonic gnosticism which viewed the spirit as superior to the physical world for instance.

Nonetheless, many of its concepts come from this milieu including the prologue of John’s Gospel. Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher and near-contemporary of Christ, viewed
the Logos as God’s thought, as His eternally generated first-born son. Do you really think that was an accident?

We fundamentally contradict each other and this is only explained that God does not originate all of these contradictory faiths.

Personally, I think the differences are rooted in human interpretations.

Bahais cannot say certain parts of the quran are correct nor can they say that of the bible because they realise those parts of teh quran and bible are wrong as per their religion.

What part of the Qur’an do we say are wrong? One might well argue that we don’t believe in the entirety of the Bible because not all of it claims to be revelation. I tend to accept the findings of higher criticism, for instance. But Qur’an is a very different sort of text. Unlike the Bible, in its entirety it is directly associated with a Manifestation of God. It would be as though Jesus personally wrote the entirety of New Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

By not making efforts to convert people what we mean is that we do not provide any coercion or inducements for people to convert.

Yes, this is the way of Catholicism, too.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, this is the way of Catholicism, too.

Indeed:

“…The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the Faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles…”

- Ad Gentes, 13, Second Vatican Council

“…It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man’s response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7) The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God’s adopted son,(9) cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father,(10) he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded…”

- Dignitatis Humanae, Art.10, Second Vatican Council

In a footnote to the documents of Vatican II there is further definition of proselytism as “a corruption of the Christian witness by appeal to hidden forms of coercion or by a style of propaganda unworthy of the Gospel. It is not the use but the abuse of the right to religious freedom.”

There was nothing revolutionary or modern about this teaching either, it had previously been stated in many papal writings from the Middle Ages:

Pope Innocent III, Letter on the Jews (1199)

We decree that no Christian shall use violence to compel the Jews to accept baptism. But if a Jew, of his own accord, because of a change in his faith, shall have taken refuge with Christians, after his wish has been made known, he may be made a Christian without any opposition. For anyone who has not of his own will sought Christian baptism cannot have the true Christian faith. No Christian shall do the Jews any personal injury, except in executing the judgments of a judge, or deprive them of their possessions, or change the rights and privileges which they have been accustomed to have. During the celebration of their festivals, no one shall disturb them by beating them with clubs or by throwing stones at them. No one shall compel them to render any services except those which they have been accustomed to render. And to prevent the baseness and avarice of wicked men we forbid anyone to deface or damage their cemeteries or to extort money from them by threatening to exhume the bodies of their dead…

Pope Innocent III, Constitutio Pro Judeis: An Edict in Favor of the Jews (September 15, 1199)

Just as, therefore there ought not to be license for the Jews to presume to go beyond what is permitted them by law in their synagogues, so in those which have been conceded to them, they ought to suffer no prejudice. These men, therefore, since they wish rather to go on in their own hardness than to know the revelations of the prophets and the mysteries of the Law, and to come to a knowledge of the Christian faith, still, since they beseech the help of Our defense, We, out of the meekness proper to Christian piety, and keeping in the footprints of Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, and Celestine, admit their petition, and We grant them the shield of Our protection.

For we make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism. But if any one of them should spontaneously, and for the sake of faith, fly to the Christians, once his choice has become evident, let him be made a Christian without any calumny. Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of the Christianity who is recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly.

Too, no Christian ought to presume, apart from the juridical sentence of the territorial power, wickedly to injure their persons, or with violence to take away their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit.

Besides, in the celebration of their own festivals, no one ought to disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform.

In addition to these, We decree, blocking the wickedness and avarice of evil men, that no one ought to dare to mutilate or diminish a Jewish cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried.

If anyone, however shall attempt, the tenor of this decree once known, to go against it - may this be far from happening! - let him be punished by the vengeance of excommunication, unless he correct his presumption by making equivalent satisfaction.

“…We decree moreover that no Christian shall compel them or any one of their group to come to baptism unwillingly. But if any one of them shall take refuge of his own accord with Christians, because of conviction, then, after his intention will have been manifest, he shall be made a Christian without any intrigue…”

- Blessed Pope Gregory X, Decree on the Jews, 1272

 

[smaneck]

Yes, this is the way of Catholicism, too.

In theory, yes. In practice the historical record is pretty mixed.