Prmerger - The Faith of Baha’u’llah is challenging. But this does not mean we have to use unfair/inaccurate statements/questions to justify a means to an end.So if I apply what I think you are saying here, these things do apply to Jose Luis de Jesus.
So am I correct in understanding that Bahais believe that Jose Luis de Jesus is also one of the latter manifestations of God?
How can you love Christ when you deny who he is? Where in the bahai worship is there any reference to Christ being your creator? Honouring him as such or where in the bahai worship is there reference to him being your final judge who will decide your place?Prmerger - The Faith of Baha’u’llah is challenging. But this does not mean we have to use unfair/inaccurate statements/questions to justify a means to an end.
One must partake of discussion about God with Justice and Love in their Heart, would you not agree?
Our Love for Christ is not your way, but it is still a complete Love for Christ. Are you saying that is wrong?
Please consider your responses in the light of fairness and I promise I will always attempt to do the same.
If you feel that we should leave your Forum, just say so. I would hope that we could share in the Love of Christ and work on this to build the world anew.
Regards Tony
Of course He did, why the question? In fact He still does.Did Jesus literally heal people?
Please don’t avoid the question by saying his teachings were more important. I want a direct answer as to whether he actually healed people.
I would say yes, the ultimate aim of Christ was to perfect them in body and soul. Now did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead? Again don’t ignore the question but answer it.Of course He did, why the question? In fact He still does.
This aside, I will ask a question in turn. Was the healing of a person physically the ultimate aim of Christ?
Regards Tony
Who denies who Christ was? Baha’u’llah has given a different perspective as to what is currently believed by some Christians, but it does not deny Christ.How can you love Christ when you deny who he is? Where in the bahai worship is there any reference to Christ being your creator? Honouring him as such or where in the bahai worship is there reference to him being your final judge who will decide your place?
Who dislikes the Physical world? I can assure you Baha’is very much Like God’s Creation and marvel at this world we live in.There were different sorts of gnostics but one strain of thouhgt that was consistent between them all was the hatred or dislike for the physical world. Bahai say that the physical world is somehow not worthy of being made eternal, all good, denying ressurection and in that way you are very much in line with gnostic thought or at least platonist thought on the inferiority of the physical world.
But heres the thing, bahai claims that they have the truth, the thing is the true Christians (which could not be the gnostics according to the quran and teachings of your prophets) would have found bahai ideas a fundamental denial of whom Christ is. Certaintly the early church isn’t the friend of the bahai.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I have some tentative idea about what a usable Bahai doctrine would look like (bearing in mind that such a formulation would never be authoritative, since we have no doctrinal authority). I think your critique of Tonyfish’s formulation is correct: God the Father is not at a different level and distinct from the Word and the Spirit, in either the Christian or the Bahai revelation. So far as I can see it, in the largely unploughed field of Bahai metaphysics, Revelation and Creation and Spirit are all bound up in the Word (that is, the Word is a trinity), since the Word is said in the Bahai writings to be the origin of creation, it is naturally the origin of revelation, and the Spirit also is said to proceed from the Word. Beyond the Word is the unknowable essence of the Godhead, which is not to be reduced to any one of the three. That gives us a quaternity rather than a trinity. I don’t imagine for a moment that I could argue that this is a correct interpretation of the New Testament record, so I am not trying to “fix” the Christian trinity. Rather, this is the shape I could envision a Bahai understanding taking, as metaphysical questions are argued over the centuries. If I was looking for a Bahai scholar to discuss this with, it would be Nader Saiedi, who although he is best known for his work on the Bab’s writings, has an acute sense for the metaphysical distinctions which are implied by Baha’u’llah’s and Abdu’l-Baha’s choices of terms. Personally, I go glazy eyed with the talk turns metaphysical.In the Trinity there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. It is a familial relationship of three divine Persons in one God. It is not God and two of his creations. … The Baha’i need to get their own doctrine, and not call it the Trinity.
Point of order – this is not from Baha’u’llah, except for the quote “a full thousand years,” but it is an accurate summary of his intent.*The Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh will last until the coming
of the next Manifestation of God, Whose advent will not
take place before at least “a full thousand years” will have
elapsed.
*
(Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 195)
Absolutely it is wrong.Our Love for Christ is not your way, but it is still a complete Love for Christ. Are you saying that is wrong?
You are projecting your fears onto the Bahais. There’s nothing true in what you have said.You want a one world state in which things are directed from one governmental body top down right? To which individual liberty and identity are confused into one world wide Nation right? Thats liberal in my opinion, although since you are forbidden to enter politics that will never happen, thus the goal of the bahai is impossible.
As for gnostics, you mainly agree with them as to the rejection of the material world being good, the only escape for you is the release of your soul into death because unlike the spiritual world this world will always have evil in it and God will never change this world, so the afterlife is your only hope.
Let there be no misgivings as to the animating purpose of the world-wide Law of Bahá’u’lláh. Far from aiming at the subversion of the existing foundations of society, it seeks to broaden its basis, to remold its institutions in a manner consonant with the needs of an ever-changing world. It can conflict with no legitimate allegiances, nor can it undermine essential loyalties. Its purpose is neither to stifle the flame of a sane and intelligent patriotism in men’s hearts, nor to abolish the system of national autonomy so essential if the evils of excessive centralization are to be avoided. It does not ignore, nor does it attempt to suppress, the diversity of ethnical origins, of climate, of history, of language and tradition, of thought and habit, that differentiate the peoples and nations of the world. It calls for a wider loyalty, for a larger aspiration than any that has animated *the human race. It insists upon the subordination of national impulses and interests to the imperative claims of a unified world. It repudiates excessive centralization on one hand, and disclaims all attempts at uniformity on the other. Its watchword is unity in diversity
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 41)
This is to be achieved through a system of international law and courts of justice, just as the balance between individual freedoms and the state is maintained in countries where the rule of law prevails.*The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, **creeds ***and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded.
(The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 203)
Thou hast asked regarding the political affairs. In the United States it is necessary that the citizens shall take part in elections. This is a necessary matter and no excuse from it is possible. My object in telling the believers that they should not interfere in the affairs of government is this: That they should not make any trouble and that they should not move against the opinion of the government, but obedience to the laws and the administration of the commonwealth is necessary. Now*, as the government of America is a republican form of government, it is necessary that all the citizens shall take part in the elections of officers and take part in the affairs of the republic.**
The Bahai community, collectively, is “non-political” in the sense that we recognise the separation of church and state as a religious principle. Baha’u’llah writes:(Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha v2, p. 342)
He Who is the Spirit (Jesus) – may peace be upon Him – was asked: “O Spirit of God! Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?” And He made reply: "Yea, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s." He forbade it not. These two sayings are, in the estimation of men of insight, one and the same, for if that which belonged to Caesar had not come from God, He would have forbidden it.
– continued →(Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 89)
*During the conference no hint must be entertained regarding political affairs. All conferences must be regarding the matters of benefit, … If any person wishes to speak of government affairs, or to interfere with the order of Governors, the others must not combine with him because the Cause of God is withdrawn entirely from political affairs; the political realm pertains only to the Rulers of those matters:… *
(National Bahai Archives (US), unpublished Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha, printed in Baha’i World Faith, 407)
Right! And God bless them:… For whose sake are the Christians supposed to take up their cross for? Christ’s right?
… the breezes of Christ are still blowing; His light is still shining; His melody is still resounding; His standard is still waving; His armies are still fighting; His heavenly voice is still sweetly melodious; His clouds are still showering gems; His lightning is still flashing; His reflection is still clear and brilliant; His splendor is still radiating and luminous; and it is the same with those souls who are under His protection and are shining with His light.
(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, 152)
He is just another guy in the world who claims to be divine.Merger,
I’m just curious does Jose Luis de Jesus have some appeal to you?
This puts you in the same category, then, as Catholics who claim that there will not be a future manifestation (although our “until” differs).For Baha’is there will not be a future Manifestation after Baha’u’llah until “…no less than a thousand years.”
Innate abilities? Everyone is born with innate abilities, Servant. That’s what makes them “innate”.In terms of Baha’i methods to discern a true Prophet from a false Prophet, Mr. Jose Luis fails on the first proof, namely having innate abilities and character as a child.
The ancient Gnostics would also say they did not deny Christ. As would the Arians, Mormons, JWs…Who denies who Christ was? Baha’u’llah has given a different perspective as to what is currently believed by some Christians, but it does not deny Christ.
Thank you, Sen. Your presence here is much appreciated.Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I have some tentative idea about what a usable Bahai doctrine would look like (bearing in mind that such a formulation would never be authoritative, since we have no doctrinal authority). I think your critique of Tonyfish’s formulation is correct: God the Father is not at a different level and distinct from the Word and the Spirit, in either the Christian or the Bahai revelation. So far as I can see it, in the largely unploughed field of Bahai metaphysics, Revelation and Creation and Spirit are all bound up in the Word (that is, the Word is a trinity), since the Word is said in the Bahai writings to be the origin of creation, it is naturally the origin of revelation, and the Spirit also is said to proceed from the Word. Beyond the Word is the unknowable essence of the Godhead, which is not to be reduced to any one of the three. That gives us a quaternity rather than a trinity. I don’t imagine for a moment that I could argue that this is a correct interpretation of the New Testament record, so I am not trying to “fix” the Christian trinity. Rather, this is the shape I could envision a Bahai understanding taking, as metaphysical questions are argued over the centuries. If I was looking for a Bahai scholar to discuss this with, it would be Nader Saiedi, who although he is best known for his work on the Bab’s writings, has an acute sense for the metaphysical distinctions which are implied by Baha’u’llah’s and Abdu’l-Baha’s choices of terms. Personally, I go glazy eyed with the talk turns metaphysical.
Suffice it to say that unless you wish to be taken seriously, comparing such petty minds to the brilliance and eloquence of Baha’u’llah is more of a reflection on your approach than anything else.So if I apply what I think you are saying here, these things do apply to Jose Luis de Jesus.
So am I correct in understanding that Bahais believe that Jose Luis de Jesus is also one of the latter manifestations of God?
I suggest you retract the above, else you will be reported for uncharity.PR This is a perverse warping of reality on your part. You are obviously more interested in entertaining yourself with insincere adolescent distractions and baseless comparisons than investing objective intellectual effort required for real and meaningful dialogue
When one cannot address differences of thought and understanding without debasing the integrity of others accustomed to honest analysis of pure and serious content, the kids at the back of the class delight themselves in shooting spitballs, throwing paper airplanes, and cracking stupid jokes.
Really PR, I had thought at most times, at least for awhile, that you were above this level of drudgery about which others must either put up with or resort to simply skipping your posts as has become necessary with certain others whose capacity and intentions are not worth taking seriously at any level.
No response required, except for perhaps waking up (or sobering up, as the case may be, whether intoxicated by wine or conceit)
Well, I would like to give a response. PR has skillfully pointed out the fallacy of your logic. Baha’u’llah has claimed divinity. You claim that those who do not recognize his divinity are somehow blinded. There are others who also claim divinity and most of the world rejects that claim as well. As PR said in another post, does the fact that we don’t believe Mr. de Jesus is divine make us blind or does it make us wise? That is a very legitimate question and the same logic applies to Baha’u’llah. We have nothing more than another man making a claim to divinity.PR This is a perverse warping of reality on your part. You are obviously more interested in entertaining yourself with insincere adolescent distractions and baseless comparisons than investing objective intellectual effort required for real and meaningful dialogue
When one cannot address differences of thought and understanding without debasing the integrity of others accustomed to honest analysis of pure and serious content, the kids at the back of the class delight themselves in shooting spitballs, throwing paper airplanes, and cracking stupid jokes.
Really PR, I had thought at most times, at least for awhile, that you were above this level of drudgery about which others must either put up with or resort to simply skipping your posts as has become necessary with certain others whose capacity and intentions are not worth taking seriously at any level.
No response required, except for perhaps waking up (or sobering up, as the case may be, whether intoxicated by wine or conceit)