Has The Religion to Which You Belong CHANGED Throughout its History and What Does This Mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TOmNossor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“CHANGE” is to become different. It is now common to discuss Development vs. Change.
I think CHANGE is when something comes into being and what is was is no longer. A small tree develops into a large tree. A tree changes into lumber.

DOGMA is a doctrine that reason would tell us cannot change.

For example:

Joseph Smith changed the belief that God is a spirit to God is flesh and bone. This is a CHANGE in DOGMA.
 
Hello Randy,
Code:
>>>Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.<<<

The manner by which successors were determined was already determined in scripture.  It was done by lots.  The exact method in which lots were done isn't mentioned but it seems to me that it is rather obvious that the final result would be determined by fate.  In many instances there was a reliance on God to exert control over the roll.  This of course would require faith from those in charge that God would intervene in the roll, however, since the pope, or in the case of LDS the prophet was decided upon by some other means other than lot, it means that God didn't choose him.
 
Has the religion to which you belong changed throughout its history and what does this mean?

I’m Baha’i and my answer is “Yes”…

In terms of central beliefs it is pretty much unchanged since it’s inception in 1844.

In terms of the outer form of the Baha’i Faith there have been marked changes…
  1. Baha’u’llah was recognized as the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Bab in 1863…
  2. After Baha’u’llah ascended in 1892 His oldest Son Abdul-Baha was His recognized Successor according to the Will and Testament of Baha’u’llah;
  3. After the passing of Abdul-Baha in 1921 Shoghi Effendi was recognized as the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith according to the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha;
  4. After the passing of Shoghi Effendi in 1954 the Universal House of Justice was elected by representatives of the Baha’i world in 1963;
What does it mean?

I would say the changes that have occurred in the Faith have been orderly and for the most part were foreseen by the Central Figures of the Faith.

So outwardly there have been some administrative changes in our Faith but the essential spiritual beliefs remain the same.😉
 
Hello Randy,
Code:
>>>Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.<<<

**The manner by which successors were determined was already determined in scripture.  It was done by lots.**  The exact method in which lots were done isn't mentioned but it seems to me that it is rather obvious that the final result would be determined by fate.  In many instances there was a reliance on God to exert control over the roll.  This of course would require faith from those in charge that God would intervene in the roll, however, since the pope, or in the case of LDS the prophet was decided upon by some other means other than lot, it means that God didn't choose him.
The pool of people to choose from was also determined in scripture:
So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.
There hasn’t been a man who fills the criteria on Earth for 2000 years.
 
The pool of people to choose from was also determined in scripture:

There hasn’t been a man who fills the criteria on Earth for 2000 years.
Hello zaff…
As the head of an organization it requires a great deal of faith to determine who to place as part of the inner circle based on a flip of the coin. What would go through ones mind is would God really step in to insure that the outcome is best. It's so much easier when the possible outcomes is limited to only the ones who the head of the organization considers qualified. This is in essence what peter did and God got to choose between two people. The problem here is when the choice is limited to two people can we really say that God chose this person.
 
The manner by which successors were determined was already determined in scripture. It was done by lots.
This is in essence what peter did and God got to choose between two people. The problem here is when the choice is limited to two people can we really say that God chose this person.
:confused:
There hasn’t been a man who fills the criteria on Earth for 2000 years.
I think you point out the problem with biblical literalism and non-Catholics telling Catholics what their Bible means.
 
Has the religion to which you belong changed throughout its history and what does this mean?

I’m Baha’i and my answer is “Yes”…

In terms of central beliefs it is pretty much unchanged since it’s inception in 1844.

In terms of the outer form of the Baha’i Faith there have been marked changes…



What does it mean?

I would say the changes that have occurred in the Faith have been orderly and for the most part were foreseen by the Central Figures of the Faith.

So outwardly there have been some administrative changes in our Faith but the essential spiritual beliefs remain the same.😉
Plus, as with all religions, the Baha’i Faith has split into separate denominations, and as is too often the case, have often treated one another with little respect. Mormons treat Gentiles, Baha’is treat non-Baha’is, and Jehovah’s Witnesses treat traditional Christians, better than they treat respectively Mormons, Baha’is, and WItnesses from rival denominations of their faith. 😦

It seems that is one change all religions have experienced - division into separate religions. God knows if this is good or bad. It allows for more variety in acceptable beliefs and in investigation of religious truths. But as practised, it also has led to new animosities.
 
TOmNossor;14035919:
I guess the two things that mitigate (severely) the lure (as I mentioned above) to Catholicism for me personally as a product of her understanding of ecclesiastical infallibility is that I would still have a lot (though less) uncertainty concerning semi-important issues AND I see such infallibility as hard to defend. As a Catholic convert who so explicitly links infallibility with irreformability and unchanging-ness, I am guessing that you have found those two things of little concern. I will again say, that there is a certain lure to the concept of absence of error!
As men received clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the church and the primacy of the Pope, they also got a clearer understanding of the Pope’s infallibility. …
Randy,
Thank you again for the response. Your response concerning “Papal Infallibility” was a subset of what I was talking about. I was referring to “Ecclesiastic Infallibility” which I think more accurately describes what you brought up as you claimed Catholicism doesn’t change. Your apologetic for Papal Infallibility IMO do not address the formal understanding of Papal or Ecclesiastic Infallibility I have looked for and not found in the early church. Were I to tell my atheist friend he MUST recognize that only through accepting the atonement of Christ can he enjoy eternal life with God (and I could appeal to God speaking through me even), many might recognize the truth in what I say even that God inspired the message. We would agree there is truth at the base of what I say and many would agree that every word I said was infallibly (without error) true. But, nobody would say I possess a chrism of infallibility concerning faith and morals or ….
I have tried to explore this here at Catholic Answers, but until the words of Vatican I (concerning both “ecclesiastic infallibility” and “papal infallibility” – but not “conciliar infallibility”); I do not see an explicit definition. Here is something I wrote on CA long ago:
Now this concept of “ecclesiastical infallibility” being first defined with clarity at Vatican I is interesting. It seems to me that Rory is correct that we will not find a council that clearly states that “conciliar infallibility” is one of two “organs of infallibility” the other being “papal infallibility.”
This seems to align PARTIALLY with something Abu said which is that councils are only infallible in that they are accepted and approved by the Pope.
So I now expect to find no conciliar declarations that there is a “conciliar infallibility.” I certainly do not expect to find any conciliar declarations that the Pope is infallible before Vatican I. While looking for somewhat explicit definitions of “conciliar infallibility” I found some difficult things to reconcile with “conciliar infallibility.” I knew there was a time when 3 folks claimed to be the pope. This was ended by the Council of Constance which succeeded in ending the papal confusion, but though considered an Ecumenical Council became the example of what Abu urged from the beginning. “Conciliar infallibility” only exists in connection with the Pope. The Pope chosen by the council to end the Papal confusion never approved of the further declaration of the council that councils are an authority on the Papacy. The fifth Lateran Councils seems to be directly contradicted the Council of Constance here too.
I know Newman lamented the difficulties born of Vatican I when it was proposed that the Pope was infallible. He said that he always believed in papal infallibility, but that the bringing up of difficulties for papal infallibility by the council (and other things) was an unnecessary stress upon the Church. I have no knowledge of similar stress brought on by the exploration of “conciliar infallibility,” and I now think Rory is likely correct that there is little to recommend it. Ultimately this aligns well with Abu too who was quite opposed to Rory’s statement, but in one respect agrees completely when he says that conciliar infallibility depends directly upon papal infallibility.
So, I am still interested in my original questions, but I am beginning to think Vatican I is where I will first find infallibility language. And that this was in reference to “ecclesiastic infallibility” and “papal infallibility” NOT in reference to “conciliar infallibility.” Thoughts?
Next, I have seen many invocations of “all truth,” “so hated error he walked to the other side of the street,” and other more or less clear statements that can be built into “ecclesiastic infallibility.” But, when did a theologian or council or pope or ? first declare that the church was protected from error/possibility of error OR was infallible? Was this before Vatican I?
Concerning your second post, I think there is an assumption that we do not share and it will probably create great difficulty. In my extra-Biblical scripture there is a passage that says, “And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things.” It seems that you view scripture as inerrant and the church as infallible and that this undergirds the way you look at these questions. I on the other hand believe I need a reliable guide to the source of TRUTH and the Giver of salvation. I even think it possible that failures in the realm of ecclesiastic infallibility exist for the purpose of helping me to recognize it is God in whom I must place complete and total faith. If my understanding is God’s truth, then my church points me to God in ways that are superior to a church that claims to be infallible (even if this claims are indisputably accurate). “Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him …”
Charity, TOm
 
Birth Control is more than anything done to prevent the conception of children. Church approved methods of Natural Family Planning (NFP) can also be used to know when a woman is most fertile and make attempts to conceive. That is why the name NFP is much more common when the topic is discussed within Catholic circles. With the use of NFP the parents are willing to allow God to be in control when they conceive or not. Even if a family is trying to space their children for some reason, they accept a child as a gift from God regardless. It is a mindset of faithful Catholics. It is trusting God in the most beautiful way.

The Catholic Church is against the use of any type of ABC when used to prevent the conception of a child. There are times when a woman must undergo a medical procedure to treat a medical problem that results in the loss of her fertility such as the need for a hysterectomy. She’s not getting it to prevent conception but as a necessary medical treatment.

In speaking of Paul VI he didn’t create reasons for new methods of family planning. He clarified the Catholic Church’s position on ABC. While many Christian churches were allowing the use of ABC Paul VI said the Catholic Church has not changed her position. Medical advancements have made the use of NFP easier and more effective but it is still the natural part of NFP.

As far as LAM it is a natural occurring infertility and sometimes is or sometimes isn’t. Even so it is not an artificial means of birth control.

The Church has never nor ever will, support abortion. It is intrinsically evil.

For you to understand the positions of Catholic Church on these issues you need to understand the position on the sacrament of marriage. When a man & woman enter into the covenant of marriage they are making an unbreakable bond before God and with God. This covenant includes many things but for the purpose of this discussion I stick to the issue of children. They stand before a priest and other witnesses to vow to be open to life, to be open to God’s plan for them regarding children. They publically state to all in attendance that they trust God’s plan for them more than what they have planned for themselves. If God’s plan is for them to have 12 children, then as long as they continue to cooperate with God’s will, 12 children they will have. If God gives them 2 children, well then 2 it is. If God’s will is for them to not conceive, then they trust in God’s will. Maybe God plans for them to open their hearts to adoption.

When a man & a woman decide to enter the covenant of marriage they agree to a sexual faithfulness that goes beyond marital faithfulness. They agree to use their bodies for what God created them to be. God created these amazing human bodies of a man and a women to fit together as one and to have nothing come between them. I don’t think I need to get into the biology of male & female and sexual parts but God made them to be one during the marital act and any different use is us getting in the way of God’s intentions.

This wasn’t created by a council or by a Pope, it’s in the bible. It’s been there from the beginning and is still the way it is.

This is where so many non-Catholic or non-Christians get hung up. It’s about faith. It’s about giving over our will to God. To submit to His authority, not our own, not some man’s, not some man made church, God’s authority and His will for our lives.

Hopefully this offers you more clarity on the issue of family planning in the Catholic Church.
Horton,
Thank you for your post. I liked and agreed with the bulk of it.
I didn’t intend to suggest that Paul VI CHANGED Catholic stance on ABC, sorry. I was just saying that his apologetic put reasons behind “Birth Control via LAM or Rhythm but not ABC or coitus interruptus.”
I expect some of my way of talking theology (to my son, his friends, and others) as it relates to sex comes from Catholic thought. I like to say that in the ideal, sex exists for two purposes the unitive and the procreative. Remember this IMO aids greatly in understanding many of the issues our society get so incredibly WRONG.
Charity, TOm
 
I think CHANGE is when something comes into being and what is was is no longer. A small tree develops into a large tree. A tree changes into lumber.

DOGMA is a doctrine that reason would tell us cannot change.

For example:

Joseph Smith changed the belief that God is a spirit to God is flesh and bone. This is a CHANGE in DOGMA.
Stephen,
I have never seen such a definition for “DOGMA.” Are you sure you didn’t invent it as a stick with which you would then beat me?
That DOGMA is irreformable teaching as declared by an authority, I get. So the irreformable of “cannot change” part is fine. But that reason alone (absence either revelation or authority) make a doctrine into a dogma is NEW to me.
Perhaps you can site some source for this.
Charity, TOm
 
Has the religion to which you belong changed throughout its history and what does this mean?

I’m Baha’i and my answer is “Yes”…

In terms of central beliefs it is pretty much unchanged since it’s inception in 1844.

In terms of the outer form of the Baha’i Faith there have been marked changes…
  1. Baha’u’llah was recognized as the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Bab in 1863…
  2. After Baha’u’llah ascended in 1892 His oldest Son Abdul-Baha was His recognized Successor according to the Will and Testament of Baha’u’llah;
  3. After the passing of Abdul-Baha in 1921 Shoghi Effendi was recognized as the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith according to the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha;
  4. After the passing of Shoghi Effendi in 1954 the Universal House of Justice was elected by representatives of the Baha’i world in 1963;
What does it mean?

I would say the changes that have occurred in the Faith have been orderly and for the most part were foreseen by the Central Figures of the Faith.

So outwardly there have been some administrative changes in our Faith but the essential spiritual beliefs remain the same.😉
Thank you for your response.
I have studied Bahaism a fair amount (partially because I could be a Baha’i and still understand how the Book of Mormon came into existence).
It seems you have outlined a succession/leadership difference from The Bab, to Baha’u’llah (both universal manifestation of God), to Abdul-Baha, to Shoghi Effendi, to the Universal House of Justice. This is a change necessitated by the progression of time of course.
One of the things that I think I have observed is a movement from some more dogmatic perspectives to more freedom perspectives. As I read things, Baha’u’llah claimed to be the master who came in the night when some watchmen had fallen asleep. The asleep watchmen were in error and should (need to in order to be “right” with God) recognize Baha’u’llah as a universal manifestation of God rather than stay in their previous faiths associated with earlier universal manifestations of God. Today the freedom of the individual (a concept present in Baha’u’llah’s writing too) is elevated above the NEED to embrace the final (most recent) universal manifestation of God. Do you see any changes like this?
Truth be told, I see a similar progression within my faith which I can acknowledge and even explain some; but I was wondering if you found this progression present / acceptable.
Charity, TOm
 
Stephen,
I have never seen such a definition for “DOGMA.” Are you sure you didn’t invent it as a stick with which you would then beat me?
According to your OP, you don’t have a problem with CHANGE. Therefore, it could not be a stick used to beat YOU. But the Mormon Church does have a problem with the truth changing, so it could be used as a stick to beat some teachings of the latter-day-saint movement; the nature of God for example.
That DOGMA is irreformable teaching as declared by an authority, I get. So the irreformable of “cannot change” part is fine. But that reason alone (absence either revelation or authority) make a doctrine into a dogma is NEW to me.
Perhaps you can site some source for this.
First, you would have to show where I said, “reason alone.”
 
Tom wrote:

“As I read things, Baha’u’llah claimed to be the master who came in the night when some watchmen had fallen asleep. The asleep watchmen were in error and should (need to in order to be “right” with God) recognize Baha’u’llah as a universal manifestation of God rather than stay in their previous faiths associated with earlier universal manifestations of God. Today the freedom of the individual (a concept present in Baha’u’llah’s writing too) is elevated above the NEED to embrace the final (most recent) universal manifestation of God.”

Thanks for your response Tom…

Sounds like your opening reference above may be a parable of sorts found in perhaps “The Seven Valleys”… Not sure of that interpretation… but anyway as I see it Baha’is regard each Manifestation of God as “universal”… only the comprehension of this principles varies from dispensation to dispensation.

We usually don’t regard any Manifestation as “final” as there will be future Manifestations.

In regard to comprehension of the spiritual principles of the Faith… at least for Westerners… Americans and Europeans this has probably grown with authorized translations of the Baha’i Writings from Persian/ Arabic to Western languages.

So Baha’is in the West early in the last century likely had a different perspective of what the Faith was like as compared with today. We also have certain practices that are implemented today such as reciting the Greatest Name ninety five times a day and paying “Huquq” that were not obligations before say 1990 in the West.
  • Art
 
Plus, as with all religions, the Baha’i Faith has split into separate denominations, and as is too often the case, have often treated one another with little respect. Mormons treat Gentiles, Baha’is treat non-Baha’is, and Jehovah’s Witnesses treat traditional Christians, better than they treat respectively Mormons, Baha’is, and WItnesses from rival denominations of their faith. 😦

It seems that is one change all religions have experienced - division into separate religions. God knows if this is good or bad. It allows for more variety in acceptable beliefs and in investigation of religious truths. But as practised, it also has led to new animosities.
Thanks for your post Tarquin…

Baha’is in my view haven’t split into “denominations”… as in say the case of Christianity. Yes some individuals have attempted to fragment the Faith in the past but for the most part have failed to split the Faith into denominations. Certainly you can see some sites online representing a few discordent voices… The vast majority of Baha’is I would suggest upwards of 90 % remain united.

The few that have attempted to fragment the Faith are left alone to themselves…

Baha’is are very active in inter-faith activities and well represented regularly at the Parliament of World Religions when it meets. We also have a NGO status at international conferences held in association with the United Nations.
  • Art
 
Baha’is in my view haven’t split into “denominations”… as in say the case of Christianity. Yes some individuals have attempted to fragment the Faith in the past but for the most part have failed to split the Faith into denominations. Certainly you can see some sites online representing a few discordent voices… The vast majority of Baha’is I would suggest upwards of 90 % remain united.

The few that have attempted to fragment the Faith are left alone to themselves.
I suppose by denomination I meant “a group having a distinctive interpretation of a religious faith and usually its own organization.” In that case the original Mormon Church (“Church of Christ”) the original Baha’i Faith, and the original Roman Catholic Church, have seen their believers divide into many denominations each. The number of divisions is in some way proportional to the membership, so that a religion with a few thousand members may have one or two dozen divisions, while a religion with millions worldwide, such as the Catholic Church, will see hundreds of divisions.

The members of the various groups tend to think of their rivals as apostates, covenant breakers, and heretics.

“The few that have attempted to fragment the Faith are left alone to themselves.” Such statements are obvious attempts to isolate and disesteem the people who follow those rival denominations. You refuse to recognize them as denominations. Apostates are generally considered insincere or wicked or both by people adhering to the religion from which those apostates parted.

It is common for a religious adherent belonging to the fragment of a religious movement that has the greatest number of members, to believe that their greater numbers confer greater legitimacy on them. When a group has fewer numbers, they point to how difficult it is to find sincere seekers and how successful evil is in leading people into falsehood; in that case, it is their hardships and the persecution they suffer that prove they are the true religion. I have had Mormons, for example, tell me at one time, that rival Mormon factions obviously are not blessed by God and not the true church because “they don’t have many members and not much money,” and later tell me that the fact that other religions have more members than the Mormon church is evidence that Satan is strong in the world, and the persecution they receive from those larger churches is evidence that they are the true church because otherwise no one would bother with them. I believe many people have this sort of outlook.

If we look at the Baha’is or the Mormons, or Catholics, too, by using membership numbers, we can pick out which one is the “true” religion. But if we take that test to a higher level - say to the level of Monotheistic religions - then Christianity is the true religion, and within Christianity, Catholicism is the true religion, and within Catholicism,Roman Catholicism. Myself, I do not believe Numbers make Right. If only 90% remain united, that means they are *not *united. Anyway, Truth is not determined by votes, nor by consensus, not by the number of people who agree with it.

The Babis divided at the death of the Bab. All religions divide. It’s human nature. I accept that the Baha’is are peaceful today, despite their earlier intolerance, and their confrontations with the Azalis and others. All religions seem to get their histories rewritten. The more successful the religion is in winning members and gaining influence, the better the histories sound. And in most cases, the more successful a religion is, the more peaceful it eventually becomes.

Years ago I was following Joel Bjorling’s research into the Baha’i Faith. He wrote “The Baha’i Faith: An Historical Bibliography” (Garland Publishing,1985). We communicated for some time about the various divisions of Baha’ism. As a result I corresponded with The Mother Baha’i Council of the United States, the Orthodox Baha’i Faith, and one or two others whose names I don’t now remember. So I know these divisions are composed of sincere, good people. They are not as you say “left to themselves,” but are shunned by rival Baha’is. The Mormons have a similar attitude about their apostates (see below), and if they “associate” with apostates they run the risk of being excommunicated themselves…

My son earned the Baha’i “Unity of Mankind” award while in Boy Scouts by the way. In the process, I too learned much more about the Baha’i Faith, its obligatory prayers, it’s New Year celebration, and learned other aspects of the Faith.

“And the soul that sins against this covenant, and hardeneth his heart against it, shall be dealt with according to the laws of my church, and shall be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.” (D&C 82:21)
 
Thanks for your post Tarquin!

I’m pleased to hear your son was awarded the “Unity of Mankind” medal! So tell me more was your son a Baha’i at the time?

We had a parallel youth movement to scouting for awhile called “Youth for One World” with our own Manual and activities.

I would say that in the case of Christian denominations you have much more of a self sustaining movement over time that qualifies it as such and not a mere attempt to split a Faith as in the case of some of the groups we were discussing.

One of the definitions by the way of a “denomination” online is:

1*.**a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect…

dictionary.com/browse/denomination
*
Hope you are happy where ever you are in your spiritual life!
  • Art
 
Tarquin:

As an addendum I would also add in response to your comment above:

*“The Babis divided at the death of the Bab. All religions divide. It’s human nature. I accept that the Baha’is are peaceful today, despite their earlier intolerance, and their confrontations with the Azalis and others…”

The fragmentation of the Azalis occurred in my view during the exile period in Baghdad (1853 - 1863)…*this due to lack of leadership and the persecution.

Historically the Baha’i Faith began when Baha’u’llah was summoned to Istanbul in 1863 and began His Mission.

See:

bahai-library.com/brief_history_bahai_faith
 
Thanks for your post Tarquin!

I’m pleased to hear your son was awarded the “Unity of Mankind” medal! So tell me more was your son a Baha’i at the time?

We had a parallel youth movement to scouting for awhile called “Youth for One World” with our own Manual and activities.
None of us have been Baha’is. I wanted to give my son an experience with people from a variety of religions for two main reasons. First, so he could appreciate the people themselves, their sincerity, their charity and good deeds, and to give him a chance to understand their perspectives. Second, so he would be less likely to have religious prejudices blinding him to the truths and valid arguments of religions not his own. If that youth program would have been in effect, we would have used it. He studied the religious awards material for a couple of other religions connected with the Scouting program.
 
Tom wrote:

“As I read things, Baha’u’llah claimed to be the master who came in the night when some watchmen had fallen asleep. The asleep watchmen were in error and should (need to in order to be “right” with God) recognize Baha’u’llah as a universal manifestation of God rather than stay in their previous faiths associated with earlier universal manifestations of God. Today the freedom of the individual (a concept present in Baha’u’llah’s writing too) is elevated above the NEED to embrace the final (most recent) universal manifestation of God.”

Thanks for your response Tom…

Sounds like your opening reference above may be a parable of sorts found in perhaps “The Seven Valleys”… Not sure of that interpretation… but anyway as I see it Baha’is regard each Manifestation of God as “universal”… only the comprehension of this principles varies from dispensation to dispensation.

We usually don’t regard any Manifestation as “final” as there will be future Manifestations.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
I should have called it the “thief in the night” interpretation. It comes from the Bible, Mark 13:32-37 and Luke 12:37-40 (and a couple other places). It was in I think I Shall Come Again by Motlagh, but there is at least one other Bahai book that discusses this.
I also think I miss remembered. Motlagh argued that it is important (critical) that we recognize the most recent universal manifestation of God. It is not good/best to remain a Jew, a Christian, or a Muslim after Baha’u’llah has come and shared His message. I now do not think Motlagh suggested Baha’u’llah was the FINAL universal manifestation, only that remaining a Christian was inadequate and Bahai’s should invite Christians to recognize Baha’u’llah.
I also remember something about how the Bab the predecessor of Baha’u’llah was a universal manifestation of God himself unlike John the Baptist the predecessor of Jesus Christ. I can no long remember the significance this was given by Motlagh.
Charity, TOm
 
Thanks to all for helping me explore this more.
While I knew there was linkage between “infallibility” and no CHANGE, it was illuminating to see them intertwine. I had explored Sufi Islam a tiny bit as I think it connects well to the other three more mystical forms of faith I mentioned. It was cool to dialogue with one who embraces this. I also was wrong about “final manifestation,” and the Bahai faith. Thanks for that correction.

Most folks tried to explain what they believed and I hope that my queries on their beliefs were respectful.

I will try to offer a couple of comments on parts of posts (and the rest of posts from those attacking posts) that IMO were more about attacking my faith than explaining one’s own faith. I suspect this will change the tone of this thread. Feel free to read no more, respond only to other posts, or jump into the mud. Such dialogue is not unimportant (especially if it can be about ideas and not individuals), but it often gets in the way of learning too.

Thanks again.
Charity, TOm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top