"The Baha'i Faith"

[jen_fla]

i have to leave for tonight, but i am looking forward to continuing this tomorrow.

good night all.

 

[arthra]

Jen Fla,

The social ordinances in our belief change from time to time…

Yes mercy and forgiveness are emphasized in the Gospel and I think you’ll also find that Jesus teaching is a way for the people of His time to escape the bondage to the letter of the law…

Jesus did not have many specific laws for a community as they were essentially there already in the laws of Moses but He does emphasize the quality of the souls involved… Judge not that ye be not judged…

Does He forbid the Mosaic law of stoning? What He does is shift analysis to those who supoposedly carry the law out.

I emphasize again Jesus did not legislate so much as that was already being done in His time…

It was left for the future for Christians to combine as they thought possible the Gospel with Roman law. See Justinian…

The laws revealed in the Qur’an were for an Ummah or community but mercy and forgiveness were also part of the teaching of that dispensation.

Consider Imam Ali…

*If you overpower your enemy, then pardon him by way of thankfulness to Allah, for being able to subdue him. *

*Overlook and forgive the weaknesses of the generous people because if they fall down, Allah will help them. *

The sin which makes you sad and repentant is more liked by Allah than the good deed which turns you arrogant

From a prayer of Ali:

*In the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful.
*

• O He who overlooks sins, and does not inflict punishment in return, have mercy o**n Thy servant,

  O Allah, be sparing with me, save me,

There is an element of Islam that stresses spiritual growth and mercy that is relatively unknown today and I stress this because of the stereotypical views we see today.

Now your example:

“let’s say jane doe has had no religion in her life, yet as of late has had a calling to come to know her God and to do His will. she reads about your religion and wonders about your notion that Jesus and mohammed are both manifestations of God. she has a married sister who has committed the sin of adultery. mohammed clearly taught that this woman is to be stoned to death whereas Jesus clearly taught to show this woman mercy and to let her live. how does she reconcile this? you answer:”

If Jane is exploring the Baha’i Faith and she is concerned about her sister who is committing adultery, the first thing she will know is that adultery is also forbidden for Baha’is but stress is on how to improve our lives and work toward improving relationships in the community. If the sister becomes a Baha’i she will not be outcast as a “sinner” but will be encouraged to seek guidance in a confidential way with her Spiritual Assembly so she can find the reasons for her behaviour and hopefully overcome these behaviours.

 

[jen_fla]

Jen Fla,

The social ordinances in our belief change from time to time…

Yes mercy and forgiveness are emphasized in the Gospel and I think you’ll also find that Jesus teaching is a way for the people of His time to escape the bondage to the letter of the law…

Jesus did not have many specific laws for a community as they were essentially there already in the laws of Moses but He does emphasize the quality of the souls involved… Judge not that ye be not judged…

Does He forbid the Mosaic law of stoning? What He does is shift analysis to those who supoposedly carry the law out.

I emphasize again Jesus did not legislate so much as that was already being done in His time…

It was left for the future for Christians to combine as they thought possible the Gospel with Roman law. See Justinian…

The laws revealed in the Qur’an were for an Ummah or community but mercy and forgiveness were also part of the teaching of that dispensation.

Consider Imam Ali…

*If you overpower your enemy, then pardon him by way of thankfulness to Allah, for being able to subdue him. *

*Overlook and forgive the weaknesses of the generous people because if they fall down, Allah will help them. *

The sin which makes you sad and repentant is more liked by Allah than the good deed which turns you arrogant

From a prayer of Ali:

*In the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful.
*

• O He who overlooks sins, and does not inflict punishment in return, have mercy o**n Thy servant,

  O Allah, be sparing with me, save me,

There is an element of Islam that stresses spiritual growth and mercy that is relatively unknown today and I stress this because of the stereotypical views we see today.

Now your example:

“let’s say jane doe has had no religion in her life, yet as of late has had a calling to come to know her God and to do His will. she reads about your religion and wonders about your notion that Jesus and mohammed are both manifestations of God. she has a married sister who has committed the sin of adultery. mohammed clearly taught that this woman is to be stoned to death whereas Jesus clearly taught to show this woman mercy and to let her live. how does she reconcile this? you answer:”

If Jane is exploring the Baha’i Faith and she is concerned about her sister who is committing adultery, the first thing she will know is that adultery is also forbidden for Baha’is but stress is on how to improve our lives and work toward improving relationships in the community. If the sister becomes a Baha’i she will not be outcast as a “sinner” but will be encouraged to seek guidance in a confidential way with her Spiritual Assembly so she can find the reasons for her behaviour and hopefully overcome these behaviours.

so thankfully you agree that mercy is to be shown to the sister and she is not to be stoned. yes we have much in common!

but the information you gave does not change what mohammed taught in regards to married adulterers. you are rejecting what a so called manifestation of God taught.

how can this be?

if only iran, saudi arabia and other islamic countries shared your view!

 

[DavidMark]

Muhammad was a Prophet of God, no doubt about it. The milieu he came in was not the same; a physician prescribes individually, and changes the prescription according to the changing condition. After Judaism and Christianity, the Arabian tribes were still immersed in polytheism, and had to be drastically “brought up to speed”. Their condition was similar to the Israelites in Moses’ time.
Your situation stops at Muhammad. But the Báb & Bahá’u’lláh had to prepare the nations for a system of Law that was universal and yet adaptable to the times. The Universal House of Justice cannot re-institute stoning, but it can decide on matters not specifically addressed, so there will be no personal interpretation by a class of qadis that no longer exist in the new community.
As hard as it may be to accept, at this late date, whoever rejects the Qur’an has rejected Jesus, even if there are some apparent differences in teaching. The Qur’an defines “muslims” as those who followed the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and His followers. Likewise, for “muslims”, whoever rejected the Báb as Mahdí was leaving Islam, because to follow the Báb would have been to continue following true “islám”.
This Religion is indeed in the sight of God, the essence of the Faith of Muhammad…~The Báb, SWB p. 71
I swear by your Lord, this Book is verily the same Qur’án which was sent down in the past. ~The Báb, SWB p. 67

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

Mohammed clearly taught that this woman is to be stoned to death whereas Jesus clearly taught to show this woman mercy and to let her live. how does she reconcile this? … either you teach God wants her to pick up the stone or He does not. by choosing you are rejecting either a tenet of Christianity or islam that is and has always been taught.
jen

In fact it was Judaism that advocated stoning for the adultress, and yet Jesus said, “let he who is without sin…” How to reconcile this?

It is one God, and one religion of God, it does not stay the same, but neither is it totally made over with each new chapter. Jesus does not simply annul the law (“not a jot or title shall pass from the Law …”), rather he does something new, that puts the law in an entirely new light.

As for the Quran, it says “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes: let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.” Here Muhammad takes the social practice of the time (which he believed went back ultimately to Abraham’s law) and gives it a new twist: the man is punished too, and as much as the woman.

However when the Meccan converts expressed their worries, having been idolaters and fornicators in the past, they were answered with a new revelation: “Except those who repent, believe, and do good” (Q 25.70). Which is not so different to the second part of the Jesus story: “go and sin no more.”

But you asked what a Bahai could tell this woman, not what a Muslem or Christian or Jew could say. Baha’u’llah says:

"God hath imposed a fine on every adulterer and adulteress, to be paid to the House of Justice: nine mithqals of gold, to be doubled if they should repeat the offence. Such is the penalty which He Who is the Lord of Names hath assigned them in this world; and in the world to come He hath ordained for them a humiliating torment. Should anyone be afflicted by a sin, it behoveth him to repent thereof and return unto his Lord. He, verily, granteth forgiveness unto whomsoever He willeth,… "

There is no court or judge in the Bahai system to impose a fine, and the House of Justice is not allowed to accept money from non-Bahais, so this ‘fine’ is a voluntary act of atonement. (Not of course a substitute for whatever remedy the guilty can offer to the victims of the sin.) The adulterer is not required to tell the House of Justice why he/she is making this particular payment.

This is a “penance”, but without the intervention of a priest. It recognises that “go and sin no more” is all very well, but usually – and especially if we are resolved to sin no more – our natural sense of justice requires that something, however symbolic, be laid in the scales by the sinner, opposite the sin, to keep the cosmic balance. For the justice of the next world, we may put our faith in vicarious atonement, but in this world the self-convicted sinner wants to at least contribute.

So what advice to give: advise her (the adultress) to read the Bahai scriptures and (if she is a Bahai) do what is required of her.

~ Sen

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

In the Baha’i faith, there is a scriptural prohibition of pederasty that has been “authoritatively” re-interpreted to proscribe homosexuality.

I guess you are not aware that this is a very contested claim within the Bahai community. The scriptural prohibition on pederasty is not in doubt, but is there an authoritative interpretation that prescribes homosexuality? The supposed interpretation is in a letter written by one of the Guardian’s secretaries (as is the supposed prohibition on ‘saying grace’ - yet Abdu’l-Baha said grace, and Baha’u’llah’s Tablet of Medicine actually prescribes it, before and after a meal.)

So here’s some of the questions raised:

• is everything that Shoghi Effendi wrote an authoritative interpretation of Bahai scripture. (answer - probably not, he himself says that some things are just personal advice).
• can a letter written by a secretary share in the Guardian’s powers of authoritative interpretation? (answer - probably yes, since sometimes they simply quote what the Guardian has already given as an interpretion.)
• can a letter from the Guardian become Bahai law? (answer - definitely not, he says so himself.)
• if the Guardian did make an interpretation, saying that the pederasty referred to by Baha’u’llah in the Aqdas also covered homosexuality as practiced in the west in the 1950’s, was this an anological reasoning based on the fact that both pederasty and homosexuality involve sex outside of marriage, or because both pederasty and homosexuality involve same-sex sex? In short, had he been asked, “how does the pederasty verse apply to same-sex unions within the framework of a marriage recognised by state and society?” what would the answer have been?

All of these ‘answers’ on the sub-questions are contested. There are some Bahais who treat every word from the Guardian or his secretary as both Interpretation and Law - in defiance of the Guardian’s own wishes in this respect - and who are quite certain that it is the ‘same-sex’ part that’s objectionable, rather than just the ‘outside of marriage’ part.

On the first question, I have an essay called ‘some interpretive principles’ that discusses how we can tell what things written by Shoghi Effendi himself are authoritative interpretations that become interwoven with the scripture they interpret, and which are instructions given by him as head of the Faith at the time. By the rules I deduce there, the letters about homosexuality would probably not be considered authoritative interpretation.

I think that there is sufficient doubt about the binding interpretive nature of the letter written by Shoghi Effendi’s secretary, and about its applicability to a same-sex marriage as distinct from homosexual activity outside of marriage, to make the question an open one. There is moreover a letter written by Abdu’l-Baha about the wisdom of referring the specification of Bahai laws to the House of Justice, in which he uses the example of the forbidden degrees of marriage: something not specified in Baha’u’llah’s text. In this letter, Abdu’l-Baha says that the House of Justice will decide about the forbidden degrees of marriage based on scientific evidence, social norms and scripture. That provides a scriptural basis for the House of Justice to decide whether a same-sex marriage represents a forbidden, or a permitted, degree of ‘sameness,’ and to change its decision in the light of scientific evidence and social norms.
However I do not expect to actually do so, until same-sex marriage is legally and socially recognised in many countries.

~ Sen

 

[DavidHouse]

Usbek de Perse,

Christianity is a trinitarian religion. There is no denying that. Unless you explain away the traditions that developed directly following the writing of the Gospels, and the Gospels themselves, really, you are left with a trinitarian religion ab initio.

You seem very thoughtful and peaceful-- both admirable characteristics. I would think, however, that the quote above (forgive me if it is taken out of context), conflates interpretation with Scripture itself. The issue of the Trinity has been the cause of many verbal and even physical arguments, as you must know.

From my point of view the explanations of Bahá’u’lláh and 'Abdu’l-Bahá with regard to the Manifestation as mirror-- explanations with which I assume, based on your posts, you are familiar-- completely resolve the tension and confusion between identity and appearance.

That aside, the reason I’m writing is to ask you, if time allows, to provide what you see as the Scriptural basis for the Trinity, and (again if possible) to offer your thought about why, for example, Episcopalian interpretations with regard to the Trinity make more sense to you than those of the Bahá’í Faith.

Thanks very much.

d.

 

[arthra]

Add to Sen’s note above…

I think he would also agree that the Universal House of Justice has the province to cover anything not specifically mentioned in the Baha’i Writings… and is today the Center of the Faith for Baha’is.

 

[DavidMark]

Sen, thank you for the deliniation of interpretive sources.
Usbek and others: After forty years of discussing the trinity with my brother, who is a conservative Christian, he recently said “so you don’t believe in the Son?” I was astonished! To me there is one God alone, supreme and unapproachable. I replied that I did believe in a triune relationship between the Unknowable Essence of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit and the Divine Manifestation, but that the latter two were subject to the first; not that the three are co-equal. Baha’is know about God, and turn to God thru the Divine Manifestation, but there is not only one Divine Manifestation. The phenomenan of another messiah/mahdí should be enough to warn a world that the Divine has been manifested again. Mention of one before Jesus is enough.
Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
John5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
I was trying to tell my brother that the three are all eternal, and transcendent above space and time. But the latter two are subject in priority to the Origin of all things. And this is surely not the only planet to which Divine Manifestations have come. Bahá’u’lláh said:
Ten thousand Prophets, each a Moses, are thunderstruck upon the Sinai of their search at His forbidding voice, “Thou shalt never behold Me!”; whilst a myriad Messengers, each as great as Jesus, stand dismayed upon their heavenly thrones by the interdiction, “Mine Essence thou shalt never apprehend!” From time immemorial He hath been veiled in the ineffable sanctity of His exalted Self, and will everlastingly continue to be wrapt in the impenetrable mystery of His unknowable Essence. (GWB, p. 62)

I want to add that there is another issue that Baha’is and Catholics have in common. Let me quote from Pillar of Fire/Pillar of Truth, Catholic Answers, www.catholic.com
“There can be no absolute assurance of salvation.” Compare that with what Baha’u’llah said: “…none knoweth what his own end shall be.” (GWB p. 265)

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Usbek de Perse,

You seem very thoughtful and peaceful-- both admirable characteristics. I would think, however, that the quote above (forgive me if it is taken out of context), conflates interpretation with Scripture itself. The issue of the Trinity has been the cause of many verbal and even physical arguments, as you must know.

From my point of view the explanations of Bahá’u’lláh and 'Abdu’l-Bahá with regard to the Manifestation as mirror-- explanations with which I assume, based on your posts, you are familiar-- completely resolve the tension and confusion between identity and appearance.

That aside, the reason I’m writing is to ask you, if time allows, to provide what you see as the Scriptural basis for the Trinity, and (again if possible) to offer your thought about why, for example, Episcopalian interpretations with regard to the Trinity make more sense to you than those of the Bahá’í Faith.

Thanks very much.

d.

Scripture and tradition go hand in hand. Indeed there was tradition before scripture as we now know it came to be written. The earliest believers had memory of Jesus, and only around 50 AD do we find the beginnings of Paul’s writings, which largely predate the Gospels. The earliest known hymn, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost…” is contemporaneous with the Gospels.

But to the point: The canon of scripture was decided upon based on tradition. Interpretation.

Christian scriptures are not manuscript documents as the Baha’is have, nor are they dictated such as the Qur’an. They are the organic memory of the early Christian community. Christian scholars readily admit that errors can creep in. There are a few passages that are dubious. And yet, look at the majestic figure of Jesus whose story is immediately infectious in all cultures. Drop some Bibles in North Korea, and I am sure you will have some Christians before too long.

As to a scriptural basis of the Trinity, I am sure that Catholic Answers can provide you with better material than I can off the cuff. There is one doctrine that unites all Christians, Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic and Orthodox and that is the triune God, the Holy Trinity. There is no Episcopal understanding of the Trinity that is distinguishable from the understanding of other Christians.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I guess you are not aware that this is a very contested claim within the Bahai community. The scriptural prohibition on pederasty is not in doubt, but is there an authoritative interpretation that prescribes homosexuality? The supposed interpretation is in a letter written by one of the Guardian’s secretaries (as is the supposed prohibition on ‘saying grace’ - yet Abdu’l-Baha said grace, and Baha’u’llah’s Tablet of Medicine actually prescribes it, before and after a meal.)

So here’s some of the questions raised:

• is everything that Shoghi Effendi wrote an authoritative interpretation of Bahai scripture. (answer - probably not, he himself says that some things are just personal advice).
• can a letter written by a secretary share in the Guardian’s powers of authoritative interpretation? (answer - probably yes, since sometimes they simply quote what the Guardian has already given as an interpretion.)
• can a letter from the Guardian become Bahai law? (answer - definitely not, he says so himself.)
• if the Guardian did make an interpretation, saying that the pederasty referred to by Baha’u’llah in the Aqdas also covered homosexuality as practiced in the west in the 1950’s, was this an anological reasoning based on the fact that both pederasty and homosexuality involve sex outside of marriage, or because both pederasty and homosexuality involve same-sex sex? In short, had he been asked, “how does the pederasty verse apply to same-sex unions within the framework of a marriage recognised by state and society?” what would the answer have been?

All of these ‘answers’ on the sub-questions are contested. There are some Bahais who treat every word from the Guardian or his secretary as both Interpretation and Law - in defiance of the Guardian’s own wishes in this respect - and who are quite certain that it is the ‘same-sex’ part that’s objectionable, rather than just the ‘outside of marriage’ part.

On the first question, I have an essay called ‘some interpretive principles’ that discusses how we can tell what things written by Shoghi Effendi himself are authoritative interpretations that become interwoven with the scripture they interpret, and which are instructions given by him as head of the Faith at the time. By the rules I deduce there, the letters about homosexuality would probably not be considered authoritative interpretation.

I think that there is sufficient doubt about the binding interpretive nature of the letter written by Shoghi Effendi’s secretary, and about its applicability to a same-sex marriage as distinct from homosexual activity outside of marriage, to make the question an open one. There is moreover a letter written by Abdu’l-Baha about the wisdom of referring the specification of Bahai laws to the House of Justice, in which he uses the example of the forbidden degrees of marriage: something not specified in Baha’u’llah’s text. In this letter, Abdu’l-Baha says that the House of Justice will decide about the forbidden degrees of marriage based on scientific evidence, social norms and scripture. That provides a scriptural basis for the House of Justice to decide whether a same-sex marriage represents a forbidden, or a permitted, degree of ‘sameness,’ and to change its decision in the light of scientific evidence and social norms.
However I do not expect to actually do so, until same-sex marriage is legally and socially recognised in many countries.

~ Sen

Oh, I am very aware of the issues confronting those in the Baha’i faith who seek some middle ground with regard to homosexuality. My words, as you quoted them, were meant to convey some of this problem. I do not wish to get into a discussion of the authority of the Guardian and his secretaries, prominent among whom was Ruhiyyah Khanum. They were, all very dedicated Baha’is.

I do not expect the House to make any changes in my lifetime, or in yours.

 

[DavidMark]

jen fla: I hope you got an answer to your question about the stoning of a woman in adultry. It is important to see that Jesus did not change the law, but it was relaxed somewhat because of His call to mercy. Muhammad’s law was even more lenient than Moses’ and the Baha’i law will become applied gradually, as the Baha’i commonwealth arises and more nations join it.
But particular laws are not how hearts respond to the re-appearance of the Divine Manifestation. If they love Him, nothing is too much to ask of them. They will give up their wealth, exit thru the 'eye of the needle" on their knees, like a camel, if necessary, go from town to town, calling other souls to devotions, expect no hospitality, but allow God to guide them, shake the dust off their soles/souls and go on to martrdom, if necessary.
If they do not love God’s Manifestation, and throw His love letters away, what then?
The Báb said of Bahá’u’lláh:
**If ye seek God, it behooveth you to seek Him Whom God shall make manifest, and if ye cherish the desire to dwell in the Ark of Names, ye will be distinguished as the guides to Him Whom God shall make manifest, did ye but believe in Him.(**SWB, p. 131)
And know thou of a certainty that by Paradise is meant recognition of and submission unto Him Whom God shall make manifest, and by the fire the company of such souls as would fail to submit unto Him or to be resigned to His good-pleasure. On that Day thou wouldst regard thyself as the inmate of Paradise and as a true believer in Him, whereas in reality thou wouldst suffer thyself to be wrapt in veils and thy habitation would be the nethermost fire, though thou thyself wouldst not be cognizant thereof.(SWB, p. 82)

Mateo’s original post called Bahá’í “a non-catholic religion” but Bahá’í is actually the most catholic Revelation God has given to mankind! My hope is that Catholics and all mankind will turn around and appeal to the One to judge to accept their offerings and services in the Abhá Kingdom.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

Add to Sen’s note above…

I think [Sen] would also agree that the Universal House of Justice has the province to cover anything not specifically mentioned in the Baha’i Writings… and is today the Center of the Faith for Baha’is.

Yes, absolutely. I should have said that, though the term I am familiar with is “head of the Faith.” On another list, I was trying to explain how something could be policy and not Bahai doctrine, or doctrine but not policy. I don’t think I succeeded, because this really is something unique to the form of the Bahai community. We have unity of action, because we have one head of the Faith and obey current rulings. But we also have freedom of conscience and in fact have a duty to read scripture ourselves and understand it for ourselves, but this does not cause fragmentation because it is conceptually separate to the sphere of administration and law. The authority in the sphere of doctrine is scripture, and the authoritative interpretations of Abdu’l-Baha and the Guardian. The ‘contestation’ I referred to is all in relation to interpreting the scripture and opinions about how to apply the teachings in our lives, and there are very diverse and sometimes clashing views. But there’s no argument about the fact that the only one who can make a new Bahai law for new circumstances, or more generally say what we all MUST do, with authority, is the House of Justice.

I have a blog entry about the doctrinal and legal spheres, at
senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/cannot-overide/

The short and – for Christians or Muslims – very surprising conclusion is that while the elected leadership of the community lays down the law, what it says does not have to be accepted as doctrinally correct. It might “conflict with the meaning and … depart from the spirit of Baha’u’llah’s revealed utterances” - or I or you might just think it does, and we can argue about that freely. But our unity of action still depends on implementing the decision anyway.

~~ Sen McGlinn

 

[DavidHouse]

Usbek de Perse,

Scripture and tradition go hand in hand…

Christian scriptures are not manuscript documents as the Baha’is have, nor are they dictated such as the Qur’an. They are the organic memory of the early Christian community. Christian scholars readily admit that errors can creep in.

Well put.

As to a scriptural basis of the Trinity, I am sure that Catholic Answers can provide you with better material than I can off the cuff. There is one doctrine that unites all Christians, Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic and Orthodox and that is the triune God, the Holy Trinity. There is no Episcopal understanding of the Trinity that is distinguishable from the understanding of other Christians.

Fair enough. If I may:

I’m no expert in this matter, but it does seem to me that the doctrine is an attempt to explain a number of potentially confusing passages, and (as it were) to adequately praise Christ, Who had no apparent parallel up to His time in the Abrahamic line. (Of course, at the same time, one wants to avoid Peter’s mistake of loving Christ so much that we are willing to ignore what He says in favor of our own enthusiasm.)

That was the reason for my question to you with regard to Bahá’u’lláh’s illustration of the Manifestation as mirror. That is, as you know, it is explained in the Bahá’í Faith that Christ is the perfect Mirror reflecting the light and heat of God. The energy transmitted and reflected in the Mirror-- the rays of that Sun-- is the Holy Spirit. The Mirror may speak and say “I am a man: I sorrow, I hunger.”, and that would obviously be true. Or the Mirror may speak and say “I am the Lawgiver, the Word of God, His Son.”, which would also obviously be true. And if the Sun were to blaze forth and speak, it would reflected without flaw in that perfect Mirror. And if that Sun said “I am that I am, and whoever hath seen Me hath seen God.”, that finally would also be perfectly true.

To my mind, it offers a perfect resolution of the various statements in Scripture, where at one point Christ speaks as if there were no difference between Himself and God, and at another rather unequivocally makes clear that there are differences in knowledge, powers and identity. By contrast-- again, speaking only for myself-- the doctrine of the Trinity appears to me to assert that God, the Holy Spirit and Christ all have the same identity, which would imply that each has the same knowledge and powers. This confuses the mind and troubles the heart. Or at least this mind and heart.

It seems to me that accepting the idea of the Mirror would not in any degree impair or indeed change your attachment to Christ. As I see it, whichever of the two ideas one chooses says nothing about the focal point of one’s heart, which you have said is the magnetic and undeniably beautiful person of Jesus Christ. Therefore I was interested in your personal acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. I thought that you might be able to offer insight from your unique perspective, as you seem thoughtful and well versed (as it were) in both Christian and Bahá’í matters, as to why you made that choice. If time permits, would you be able to offer me some further insight?

And yet, look at the majestic figure of Jesus whose story is immediately infectious in all cultures. Drop some Bibles in North Korea, and I am sure you will have some Christians before too long.

No question. I think you would have to agree that the same thing is or would be true of the majestic figure of the Báb, although His story is not scripture.

 

[KRAS]

Sorry if sentences are run on sorry if spelling is wrong i am Lazy don’t spell check and i am not english major.

I had been involved with baha’i individuals way back when i was in high school, At a glance good people and very into bringing UNITY to all race and cultures very nobel. My Original thoughts. They Helped with in there own Circles and had home Bible studies vs Churches. They Attended Many Native american Pow Wows and drew from Some of the teachings and made it their own. So now I classed them not only as Funneh Christians but New Age hippie Christians. This is all from my personal experience. So Others may have had different experiences. I rarely talk Religion with them as My Dad was friends with one couple. I started to see a division in his long time friend ship with his friend and Noticed my dad spending less and less time with him . According to my dad they began ganging up on him telling him you been Socializing with us for a time now you come to our bible studies and you come to Our Social events. We would like you to covert from RC to Baha’i, we would also like you to Start paying More Money to our organization. We would like you to have one of our families host you and your son in our Congregation, they essential wanted us to move in to a Apartment in there housing community . My Dad said it became more and more intimidating and he wasn’t going to believe in some foolish driven religion that doesn’t believe Jesus was the son of god. My Dad was a giving person and would always do more than most would do for people in need and my dad did a lot for these people from fixing there cars helping them with there roofs or yard work to loaning money. They saw him for what he was as a Giver a good person they saw him as an asset a Sucker not the good qualities he was. I invited his long time friend who he hadn’t seen in at least 10 years When He passed away not a condolence just No Sorry we wont be able to make it. very disheartening and i feel that these people Strong or not in their faith are pushy. And deal in absolutes ,< sith >. "quote "you are either with us or your my enemy

 

[DavidMark]

Paul’s letters are considered the “Word of God” by Christians. Compare them with Nabíl’s Narrative (Dawnbreakers) -the greatest source of information we have in English about the Báb, thanks to Shoghi Effendi, and their impact is that of Scripture. Still, even the Writings of the Báb, by His own testimony, are subject to the approval of “Him Whom God shall make manifest” (i.e. Bahá’u’lláh)
Dawnbreakers contains things said by the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh, and records Their doings and movements, just like the inspired Gospels did of Christ; in fact Nabíl’s manuscript was approved by Bahá’u’lláh in His own lifetime!. What’s the difference?

The Báb’s life and mission, His disciples and martyrdom all resemble Christianity’s origins. So, if the same conditions re-appear why not exercize the same faith?
That such a massive torrent of Verses could come down, rapidly, without editing, to two men without formal education, on so many topics, in such eloquent and beautiful style
–and still the religious leaders and those following previous religions do not take notice, is dumbfounding to me…Yet some are graced with open hearts, and these struggle to teach themselves and their children.
We are the angels, the saints, the apostles of the New Day if we humbly serve Him.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Paul’s letters are considered the “Word of God” by Christians. Compare them with Nabíl’s Narrative (Dawnbreakers) -the greatest source of information we have in English about the Báb, thanks to Shoghi Effendi, and their impact is that of Scripture. Still, even the Writings of the Báb, by His own testimony, are subject to the approval of “Him Whom God shall make manifest” (i.e. Bahá’u’lláh)
Dawnbreakers contains things said by the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh, and records Their doings and movements, just like the inspired Gospels did of Christ; in fact Nabíl’s manuscript was approved by Bahá’u’lláh in His own lifetime!. What’s the difference?

The Báb’s life and mission, His disciples and martyrdom all resemble Christianity’s origins. So, if the same conditions re-appear why not exercize the same faith?
That such a massive torrent of Verses could come down, rapidly, without editing, to two men without formal education, on so many topics, in such eloquent and beautiful style
–and still the religious leaders and those following previous religions do not take notice, is dumbfounding to me…Yet some are graced with open hearts, and these struggle to teach themselves and their children.
We are the angels, the saints, the apostles of the New Day if we humbly serve Him.

If Baha’is use the same categories of writings as Christians use for the New Testament canon, Baha’i “Scripture” would be expanded several fold. Oddly, however, the writings of Shawqi Affandi (using the system of transliteration he used for other people’s names) may not count in such an expanded canon as he did not know Baha’u’llah. Regarding Nabil’s Narrative, I heard someone authoritative say that since Shawqi Affandi translated it, it takes on the nature of an authoritative text.

I think Muslims have the most restrictive qualification for sacred text. It is confined to the Qur’an, though amplified by non-scriptural sunna and hadith. Actually, the sunna resembles “tradition” in Christianity.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I should explain my nom de blog.

Usbek is the principal character in Montesquieu’s Lettres persanes, a remarkable epistolary novel based on two Persians who, in the early years of the 18th century, travel to Paris, partly because of an excess of candor in the Shah Abbas’ court. The two travelers move from Persia through Turkey, then Italy and finally to France. Persia and France are parallel places in the work. The letters are between Usbek, his travel companion Rica, their families, and Usbek with his wives, and the black eunuchs who guard them.

Montesquieu takes the erotic idea of a harem and imagines real women cooped up with each other, their husband absent for 10 years. He imagines the feelings of the eunuchs, and of the wives toward them.

Oddly, the name Usbek is so un-Persian as to be laughable. The Uzbekis are a Turkic people who are a natural rival of the Persians.

In much of the work, descriptions of Islam are ciphers for criticisms of the Catholic church.

The fictional visit to Paris occurs 200 years before the actual visit by Abdu’l-Baha. The work, though fiction, colored French ideas about Persia probably up until today, so I wonder how many French saw Abdu’l-Baha through the lens of the Lettres persanes.

 

[DavidMark]

My Dad said it became more and more intimidating and he wasn’t going to believe in some foolish driven religion that doesn’t believe Jesus was the son of god.

I have to keep proving to people that Bahá’ís believe in the Son, but we don’t believe that Jesus was the only divine Manifestation, nor did Jesus teach that. Even learned Muslims understand that Jesus occupied the station of “sonship” and yet know that ‘God does not beget and is not begotten’. How else do they explain His virgin birth?
But Isaiah and others promised the appearance of the Everlasting Father, and that does not mean the Unknowable Essence, who never incarnated Himself into any created form and never will. We should understand the Sonship as a son having the characteristics of the father.
John 14:9 He that hath seen me hath seen the Father yet
1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.
This is a mystery, and Catholics like a good mystery. The Everlasting Father has a covenant with mankind concerning His Son, the christ-like 'Abdu’l-Bahá!
The ‘Muslim matrix’ is depicted in Revelation 12. The Woman is not the Virgin Mary, but something new to come, that follows the template of Hagar in the wilderness (of Hijaz), with Ishmael, the progenitor of Muhammad, the star-like Imams and the Báb, Whom she is carrying, clothed with the ‘sun’ of Persia, out of which He would come, with the ‘moon’ at her feet, meaning that Sunni Turkey was second to Shí’ih Persia.
So, Michael, the ‘chief prince’ of Persia, and ‘protector’ of the Zionists, threw down the dragon of the Caliphate, and facilitated the return of the Jews to Israel. This is a condensation of 'Abdu’l-Bahá’s explanation in Some Answered Questions.
But Catholics have ingrained in them to reject Muhammad, and anything that comes out of the Muslim matrix, since Popes did it from the beginning of the Islamic Revelation. Here is a passage that says much about the Bahá’í attitude to the Son & ‘the Father’, and the consequences of rejecting a divine Manifestation. No matter who did what to whom, KRAS, recognizing the Manifestation is the duty of every creature, between them and God:
**
Islam, at once the progenitor and persecutor of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, is, if we read aright the signs of the times, only beginning to sustain the impact of this invincible and triumphant Faith. We need only recall the nineteen hundred years of abject misery and dispersion which they, who only for the short space of three years persecuted the Son of God, have had to endure, and are still enduring. We may well ask ourselves, with mingled feelings of dread and awe, how severe must be the tribulations of those who, during no less than fifty years, have, “at every moment tormented with a fresh torment” Him Who is the Father, and who have, in addition, made His Herald – Himself a Manifestation of God – to quaff, in such tragic circumstances, the cup of martyrdom.**(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 99)
In this passage, the Guardian alludes to a repercussion on the ‘muslim’ world for rejecting the Twin Trumpet Blasts of the Báb & Bahá’u’lláh, whose two ministries added up to an unprecedented amount of “Daytime” if you consider the period when the active Word of God is being revealed, followed by “Night” when the stars and Moon of guidance come out , until the next Dawn of a Dispensation.
Already, political upheaval, military conflict, interaction with the West, and the principle of Reciprocity is re-shaping the world, and preparing it for the growth of another faith-based civilization, one that will be broader, deeper, and last longer than any previous one.

 

[KRAS]

I keep having to prove to people that Bahá’ís believe in the Son, but we don’t believe that was the only divine Manifestation, nor did Jesus teach that. Even learned Muslims understand that Jesus occupied the station of “sonship” and yet know that ‘God does not beget and is not begotten’.
Isaiah and others promised the appearance of the Everlasting Father, and that does not mean the Unknowable Essence, who never incarnated Himself into any created form and never will. We should understand the Sonship as a son having the characteristics of the father.
John 14:9 He that hath seen me hath seen the Father yet
1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.
This is a mystery, and Catholics like a good mystery. But Catholics have ingrained in them to reject Muhammad, since Pope did it from the beginning of the Islamic Revelation. Here is a passage that says much about the Bahá’í attitude to Jesus, and the consequences of rejecting a divine Manifestation, no matter who did what to whom, KRAS, recognizing the Manifestation is the duty of every creature, between them and God:
**
Islam, at once the progenitor and persecutor of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, is, if we read aright the signs of the times, only beginning to sustain the impact of this invincible and triumphant Faith. We need only recall the nineteen hundred years of abject misery and dispersion which they, who only for the short space of three years persecuted the Son of God, have had to endure, and are still enduring. We may well ask ourselves, with mingled feelings of dread and awe, how severe must be the tribulations of those who, during no less than fifty years, have, “at every moment tormented with a fresh torment” Him Who is the Father, and who have, in addition, made His Herald – Himself a Manifestation of God – to quaff, in such tragic circumstances, the cup of martyrdom.**(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 99)
In this passage, the Guardian alludes to a repercussion in the ‘muslim’ world for rejecting the Twin Trumpet Blasts of the Báb & Bahá’u’lláh, whose two ministries added up to 45-46years --an unprecedented amount of “Daytime” if you consider the period when the active Word of God is being revealed, followed by “Night” when the stars and Moon of guidance come out , until the next Dawn of a Dispensation.
Already, political upheaval, military conflict, interaction with the West, and the principle of Reciprocity is re-shaping the world, and preparing it for the growth of another faith-based civilization, one that will be broader, deeper, and last longer than any previous one.

Kudos for informing me , But in 1993 they pushed so hard that jesus Was A profit that he was a messanger of god he was not the son they Acknowledged he was alive that he exsited. I dont keep up to much with Other religions but thats how it was put on us.