Baha'i Faith and Bibliolatry
mike3
I read this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/f45a2b76517abe72?hl=en&&q=%22communism%22+group%3Asoc.religion.bahai
"Deviation from spiritual principles is the heart of the problem is it
not? I
think that most people outside the Faith would agree. Perhaps the
problem
goes deeper than that. We often use terms such as "spiritual
principles"
whose definition is based on values. If the values are left undefined,
the
meaning of this term is unconstrained. This is where the purpose of
religion
as stated in the relevant scriptures becomes so important.
Unconstrained
terms tend to fuel debates over what turns out to be no more than hot
air.
In religious
circles, those with material values can construe "spiritual
principles" to
define priorities that are alien to religion. An example of this is
bibliolatry where the words or originator of the words in scripture
are
deemed to be of primary importance. This spawns the old "appeal to
authority" which is an entirely invalid arguement: In this case
stating the
conclusion that
because it is in the scriptures, it must be true, and therefore any
other
evidence is inadmissible. Such dogmatic approaches have spawned the
clash of
religion and science (not to mention sect and sect) and in modern
times is
used by certain cults to justify fraud and other acts of brazen
dishonesty.
This is because truth in such a system, is dumped in favour of a
materialistic idol fashioned from selected scriptures and those
"contexts"
not constrained by the purpose of religion as stated in the scriptures
used.
There is a great deal of material in the writings concerning such
issues
addressing the harmony of religion and science, and the independent
investigation of truth. Such ideals if applied are a cure to such
problems. "
However, I've then heard of quotes from the Baha'i religious scripture
that suggest that "bibliolatry" -- that the "words in scripture are of
primary importance" and that "because it is in the scripture it must
be true" -- is "right":
"We must not be afraid in stating truths in spite of the fact that
they may
run against what the biologist, the astronomer, the physicist, etc.,
say.
His point is that we should not impose it on the scientist, but we
should
have the courage to make these statements and not be afraid of
stating
them
and saying we have no proof. We must admit that we have no proof,
but
state
these are our teachings and express the hope science will prove them.
These statements are divine Revelation and we believe in them. We
should not
do what the Muslim and Christian leaders have done and compromise. It
is
a very subtle form of corruption that the Muslim leaders have
introduced into
the Qur'an (regarding marriage, astronomy, etc.,). If science
discovers a
fact contrary to the text of the teachings, the Baha'is must adhere
to
the
text of the teachings, even if it takes a thousand years to prove it
as it
did with the text of the Qur'an," (Surih 36) and (Answered
Questions
page28).
Which at a face up reading would seem to suggest that Baha'i Faith
would accept bibliolatry as a valid and important religious principle.
Otherwise one is making "corrupting" and so actually _harmful_
"compromises", to bring other forms of evidence into play. For
example, like interpreting 'Abdu'l-Baha's statements about evolution
as having to do with metaphysics instead of physics, by the
introduction of scientific evidence & logic into the debate. Yet if
"bibliolatry" causes a "clash" of science and religion, which is
something to be abhorred, then isn't it better to make potentially
corrupting compromises by bringing scientific evidence into the
debate?
Douglas McAdam
There is a difference between the Revelation of Baha'u'llah which is
the Baha'i Religion and that of what individuals interpret and
practice which is an evolving religion. In other words Baha'u'llah
gave us the true religion but what our limited minds understand and
apply is evolving constantly as we become more spiritual. I do not
feel we can compare our Baha'i Religion to those of former years that
have become corrupted in practice because we have all the safeguards
given us by Baha'u'llah to avoid such corruption. We have the
Covenant, an Official Interpreter, the Guardian and the House of
Justice. So officially I do not see where any difference between
"true religion" and "true science" can occur but I do see that there
can be struggles between individual interpretations on both sides as
we refine both branches of knowledge to become true.
I think it a mistake to make absolute statements about such things as
evolution. Just because many scientists interpret what meager
evidence is available one way and a literalist religionist interprets
differently may mean both are wrong as we discover more evidence.
Maybe if we focused on the Divine Plan given us and spend most of our
time and energy into realizing the Goals the House of Justice has
given us all these debates might fall by the wayside and what we now
see as paradoxes or contradictions will be cleared up for us.
These debates remind me of the four blind men discovering the elephant
and each holding a part and believing he has the whole elephant.
regards,
doug
mike3
> Dear Mike-
> There is a difference between the Revelation of Baha'u'llah which is
> the Baha'i Religion and that of what individuals interpret and
> practice which is an evolving religion. In other words Baha'u'llah
> gave us the true religion but what our limited minds understand and
> apply is evolving constantly as we become more spiritual. I do not
> feel we can compare our Baha'i Religion to those of former years that
> have become corrupted in practice because we have all the safeguards
> given us by Baha'u'llah to avoid such corruption. We have the
> Covenant, an Official Interpreter, the Guardian and the House of
> Justice. So officially I do not see where any difference between
> "true religion" and "true science" can occur but I do see that there
> can be struggles between individual interpretations on both sides as
> we refine both branches of knowledge to become true.
> I think it a mistake to make absolute statements about such things as
> evolution. Just because many scientists interpret what meager
> evidence is available one way and a literalist religionist interprets
> differently may mean both are wrong as we discover more evidence.
Questions of whether or not one can call 150+ years of evidence
including
zillions of fossils and DNA samples and stuff and all that research
done on
it "meager" aside, are you saying one does _not_ have to "take it
literally"
(the religious scripture), then?
With evolution, new evidence is constantly coming to light, but
nothing has
ever been found that would seriously question the most basic part
(common
material descent and change of species), and it is extremely unlikely
anything
ever will be found to do so. So then maybe such religious stuff need
not be
taken with simple-minded approaches such as literalism. What I'm
talking
about is: is it _bad_ to use scientific evidence to inform one's
understanding
of the religion (e.g. to determine if a literal interpretation is
really warranted or
not? Another example: scientific evidence tells us we can't take,
say, the
Bible's Genesis story as having much to do with the real story of the
creation
of the Earth and Universe)? Instead of just blind and dogmatic "appeal
to
authority" methods?
Douglas McAdam
The Bahai Writings say that true science and true religion are in
harmony. Do we have true science and true religion now? I doubt it
and that is because we are just beginning our spiritual development
and thus the products of our minds, i.e. current science and current
religion are still evolving as new evidence and new understandings are
gained. Science is a relative knowledge and so is religion. All
scientists I know are open minded and so are all the Baha'is that I
interact with personally.
regards,
doug
mike3
> Hi Mike-
>
> The Bahai Writings say that true science and true religion are in
> harmony. Do we have true science and true religion now? I doubt it
> and that is because we are just beginning our spiritual development
which will have no end...
> and thus the products of our minds, i.e. current science and current
> religion are still evolving as new evidence and new understandings are
> gained.
Isn't that _always_ how it will be, given that we will never know
everything?
> Science is a relative knowledge and so is religion. All
> scientists I know are open minded and so are all the Baha'is that I
> interact with personally.
>
(Of course let's not be so open minded our brains have fallen out :)
But
not so closed minded either we don't make progress. :) But then again
that's probably how a good scientist would be.)
I still don't see how this answers the question about should religion
"lay
everything down", and "science" always be tossed out in favor of it
(dogmatism)?
Or should scientific _evidence_ be useful in discussing religious
questions,
where there seem to be scientific things involved (i.e. the stuff
about
evolution), or is this "evil"? (As that's what the quote _seems_ to
imply).
I.e. should one just _dismiss_ evolutionary theory _entirely_, _right
now_,
even though there is quite a bit of evidence for it and _no evidence_
has
come up to contradict the basic principles, in favor of a _simple
minded and
literal_ interpretation of religion, or not?
And isn't it important in the unifying process, to work on actually
trying to
bring about a more harmonized science/religion, instead of one that is
rife
with conflicts?
Douglas McAdam
I think what I'm trying to say is that neither side should be
insisting they have the truth and the other is wrong?
When it comes down to it I keep asking myself what has all this got to
do with mankind fulfilling God's purpose wherein we should love one
another?
When I was in college I was presented through anthropology and
sociology, etc. lots of different kinds of beliefs, animism, voodoo
etc., etc. and it did not change my life in any way so why worry about
whether or not the theory of evolution or the creationist theories are
being presented? However because we have the separation of church and
state rule we need to be careful to keep this and not allow religion
to rule education nor in any cause religions to be ignored. There can
be a way to present education objectively.
Mike, if, as I mentioned before, we are out of touch with the purpose
of things we are out of touch with reality. This is easy to
understand when dealing with "things" such as cars, buildings,
computers etc. but when it comes to life itself we go to the religions
and find that God has given us not only our purpose but the proper
behavior pattern to achieve such purpose which in the end will produce
love and unity. To me that means that our physical senses,
intellectual powers and our power of faith all must be turned towards
fulfillment of that purpose in order for us to be in unity like the
rest of creation. Once we attain this within ourselves we then will
produce sciences and religion that is more effective. At the moment
we are not seeing too many scientists nor religionists that have
attained this unity within themselves and thus we are experiencing all
sorts of disunity.
regards,
doug
mike3
> Hi Mike-
> I think what I'm trying to say is that neither side should be
> insisting they have the truth and the other is wrong?
Oh, OK. But the drift I was getting was that the religion should
insist on
having Truth(TM) and that everything else is "bad".
And here is where we come to the rub. See, if one is trying to "force"
Truth(TM) on the other, then there isn't any unity. Do you get the
drift?
<snip>
Douglas McAdam
On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:51 AM, mike3 wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:31 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Hi Mike-
>> I think what I'm trying to say is that neither side should be
>> insisting they have the truth and the other is wrong?
>
> Oh, OK. But the drift I was getting was that the religion should
> insist on
> having Truth(TM) and that everything else is "bad".
Hi Mike-
I don't know where you are getting this drift from for I certainly
have never said that religion only has the Truth and everything else
is bad. On the contrary, if you review my posts you will see how I
often remark how both religion and science are the products of our
limited minds in discovering, experiencing revelations from God and
the natural phenomena. Both are evolutionary but the problem comes
when religionists fail to believe in and accept and practice a new
Revelation from God or when scientists claim to have absolute
knowledge. Both are separate paths to Truth.
Again, I have no idea why you make this statement cause I do not know
of anyone on this forum trying to force Truth on anyone else. No, I
take that back for there are times when a contributor has tried to
insist his views were right and others wrong but to me that is not the
general attitude of most Baha'is I know.
regards,
doug
>
>
> <snip>
>
mike3
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:51 AM, mike3 wrote:
> > Oh, OK. But the drift I was getting was that the religion should
> > insist on
> > having Truth(TM) and that everything else is "bad".
>
> Hi Mike-
> I don't know where you are getting this drift from for I certainly
> have never said that religion only has the Truth and everything else
> is bad. On the contrary, if you review my posts you will see how I
> often remark how both religion and science are the products of our
> limited minds in discovering, experiencing revelations from God and
> the natural phenomena. Both are evolutionary but the problem comes
> when religionists fail to believe in and accept and practice a new
> Revelation from God or when scientists claim to have absolute
> knowledge. Both are separate paths to Truth.
>
Because of what that quote I mentioned says. E.g. don't use the
scientific
stuff to inform the religious debate or aid its understanding, as that
is then
"compromising" with science which "destroys" the religion. Or at least
that's
the "drift" I get from it. If the religion, literally, would say
evolution for example
is "false", then _toss out all the science_, right then and there,
lest one
"damage" the religion. That is the "bibliolatry": the religion is
absolute gospel
dogma that _trumps everything else_. Trump trump trump. But maybe I am
not actually getting the real drift...
<snip>
> > And here is where we come to the rub. See, if one is trying to "force"
> > Truth(TM) on the other, then there isn't any unity. Do you get the
> > drift?
>
> Again, I have no idea why you make this statement cause I do not know
> of anyone on this forum trying to force Truth on anyone else. No, I
> take that back for there are times when a contributor has tried to
> insist his views were right and others wrong but to me that is not the
> general attitude of most Baha'is I know.
>
See above.
mike3
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:51 AM, mike3 wrote:
> > Oh, OK. But the drift I was getting was that the religion should
> > insist on
> > having Truth(TM) and that everything else is "bad".
>
> Hi Mike-
> I don't know where you are getting this drift from for I certainly
> have never said that religion only has the Truth and everything else
> is bad. On the contrary, if you review my posts you will see how I
> often remark how both religion and science are the products of our
> limited minds in discovering, experiencing revelations from God and
> the natural phenomena. Both are evolutionary but the problem comes
> when religionists fail to believe in and accept and practice a new
> Revelation from God or when scientists claim to have absolute
> knowledge. Both are separate paths to Truth.
>
Because of what that quote I mentioned says. E.g. don't use the
scientific
stuff to inform the religious debate or aid its understanding, as that
is then
"compromising" with science which "destroys" the religion. Or at least
that's
the "drift" I get from it. If the religion, literally, would say
evolution for example
is "false", then _toss out all the science_, right then and there,
lest one
"damage" the religion. That is the "bibliolatry": the religion is
absolute gospel
dogma that _trumps everything else_. Trump trump trump. But maybe I am
not actually getting the real drift...
<snip>
> > And here is where we come to the rub. See, if one is trying to "force"
> > Truth(TM) on the other, then there isn't any unity. Do you get the
> > drift?
>
> Again, I have no idea why you make this statement cause I do not know
> of anyone on this forum trying to force Truth on anyone else. No, I
> take that back for there are times when a contributor has tried to
> insist his views were right and others wrong but to me that is not the
> general attitude of most Baha'is I know.
>
See above.
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike-
I know of no such quote. Can you please post it for me.
>
>
> <snip>
>>> And here is where we come to the rub. See, if one is trying to
>>> "force"
>>> Truth(TM) on the other, then there isn't any unity. Do you get the
>>> drift?
>>
>> Again, I have no idea why you make this statement cause I do not know
>> of anyone on this forum trying to force Truth on anyone else. No, I
>
>> take that back for there are times when a contributor has tried to
>> insist his views were right and others wrong but to me that is not
>> the
>
>> general attitude of most Baha'is I know.
>>
>
> See above.
Like I said I know of no Baha'is who try to force truth on anyone.
>
>
>
mike3
> On Feb 6, 2009, at 1:13 PM, mike3 wrote:
> > Because of what that quote I mentioned says. E.g. don't use the
> > scientific
> > stuff to inform the religious debate or aid its understanding, as that
> > is then
> > "compromising" with science which "destroys" the religion. Or at least
> > that's
> > the "drift" I get from it. If the religion, literally, would say
> > evolution for example
> > is "false", then _toss out all the science_, right then and there,
> > lest one
> > "damage" the religion. That is the "bibliolatry": the religion is
> > absolute gospel
> > dogma that _trumps everything else_. Trump trump trump. But maybe I am
> > not actually getting the real drift...
>
> Hi Mike-
> I know of no such quote. Can you please post it for me.
>
I mentioned it in my original post. Didn't you see that? You yourself
quoted it in a post here last month:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/2be702bd553835f1?hl
en
<snip>
> > See above.
>
> Like I said I know of no Baha'is who try to force truth on anyone.
>
>
Ah.
[Moderator: Doug was not quoting the Qoran and Some Answered Questions,
he was paraphrasing them as he understands them. When Baha'is call
something a "quote" they usually mean the exact text from an authorized
translation. Tom]
Douglas McAdam
Here is the quote below and I cannot in m wildest imagination see how
you can come up with the ideas it is saying it is "bibliograph" and
"trumps everything else". I also says==
> ,,,His point is that we should not impose it on the scientist, but
On the other hand I would say that scientists have no right to impose
what they feel as truth upon religionists. That is not how the
harmony of science and religion principle is supposed to work. We all
should be aware that what we now believe as truth is only relative to
what we may discover later as we continue our search.
I do not know of any Baha'is trying to force these truths on
scientists or others.
regards,
doug
> =en
mike3
> Hi Mike-
> Here is the quote below and I cannot in m wildest imagination see how
> you can come up with the ideas it is saying it is "bibliograph" and
> "trumps everything else". I also says>
> > we should have the courage to make these statements and not be
> > afraid of stating them and saying we have no proof..."
>
> On the other hand I would say that scientists have no right to impose
> what they feel as truth upon religionists. That is not how the
> harmony of science and religion principle is supposed to work. We all
> should be aware that what we now believe as truth is only relative to
> what we may discover later as we continue our search.
>
But the question was not about "imposing" truth -- the question was
about
_finding_ truth, and _understanding_ truth -- namely about whether or
not
scientific _evidence_ should be used to aid in the understanding of
certain
"religious" statements where that would seem possible (for example,
statements about evolution.).
Nor was I claiming that any belief should be taken as absolute truth
-- quite
the opposite, actually.
> I do not know of any Baha'is trying to force these truths on
> scientists or others.
>
The relevant part of the quote (in my view) is (and this has nothing
to do
with "forcing" on others, by the way, but the type of belief/attitude
that is
taken by oneself):
"These statements are divine Revelation and we believe in them. We
should not
do what the Muslim and Christian leaders have done and compromise. It
is
a very subtle form of corruption that the Muslim leaders have
introduced into
the Qur'an (regarding marriage, astronomy, etc.,). If science
discovers a
fact contrary to the text of the teachings, the Baha'is must adhere
to
the
text of the teachings, even if it takes a thousand years to prove it "
So according to the quote, admitting other evidence to help discern
the "truth" would be corrupting and so destroying the religion: if a
face-up interpretation is contradicted (e.g. "evolution didn't
happen"),
one must stick to the face-up literal truth or else one is corrupting
the
religion: "We should not do what the Muslim and Christian leaders have
done and compromise." But this is "bibliolatry" (as defined in the
Usenet
post) and "trumps all else", and it appears to be required, lest one
be
corrupting and destroying the religion and so going away from truth --
but such bibliolatry leads to brazen dishonesty and cultism.
That is not a good thing. But if one admits scientific evidence, then
one is compromising and so corrupting and destroying the religion, no?
(And isn't dishonesty/cultism also corrupting and destroying the
religion?) So you're (generic "you" here, by the way) caught between a
rock and a hard place: you admit the scientific evidence, and you are
making ruinous compromises, or you refuse to admit the evidence and
you are then indulging in the practice of bibliolatry, which is a
cause of
cultism and brazen dishonesty -- each of which are corrupting and
destroying the religion (for the former, it is stated in the quote,
for the
latter, it is evident by logic -- surely a brazen-dishonest and
cultified
religion is corrupt, no?). It's a gigantic catch 22. Unless... "using
scientific evidence" is NOT the same as "compromising"... yet the
quote clearly and explicitly says "in spite of the fact that they may
run against what the biologist, the astronomer, the physicist, etc.,
say.", which means they *trump* that evidence... And is going to less
literal interpretations of religious text _also_ "compromising"???
<snips>
mike...@yahoo.com
I must state that I read this quote below and was so disturbed by it
that I looked it up and so far haven't found it:
"If science discovers a fact contrary to the text of the teachings,
the Baha'is must adhere to the text of the teachings, even if it takes
a thousand years to prove it as it did with the text of the
Qur'an," (Surih 36) and (Answered Questions page
I'd like a full citation of this because it literally contradicts
everything I've learned as a Baha'i.
If any religion rejected Science and knowledge, that religion was
false. Science and Religion should go forward together; indeed, they
should be like two fingers of one hand.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 70)
I think the word "any" is inclusive of the Baha'i Faith. There are a
multitude of quotes (way too many to even begin counting) where Abdu'l-
Baha makes it explicitly clear that when religion contradicts
scientific facts and theories it is mere superstition and yet I am
left unable through all the search engines to find even a single quote
about what happens when science contradicts religion.
I can however find quotes about the importance of using the ethical
principles of the Baha'i faith when investigating science. Ie. we
shouldn't mistreat animals. Moreover, I can find guidance stating that
religious principles should not be determined by science.
So I am left with the opinion that it would be nothing less than a
blasphemy against Abdu'l-Baha and the Baha'i Faith to act as if
anything he or any other religion or religious leader is the doctrine
for science.
In short, I think science can tell us the physical nature of things,
and it can tell us how things work. We can find our 'morality' center
in our brains and know that we can damage this area of our brain. But
science can't tell us about the spiritual aspects of our reality.
Certainly religion (within reason) can be a source of inspiration for
scientific inquiry and it may one day come to pass that everything
Abdu'l-Baha stated was right, but it stands that we must live by his
guidance on the matter and respect the scientific facts of our time.
Larry Gusaas
> I must state that I read this quote below and was so disturbed by it
> that I looked it up and so far haven't found it:
>
> "If science discovers a fact contrary to the text of the teachings,
> the Baha'is must adhere to the text of the teachings, even if it takes
> a thousand years to prove it as it did with the text of the
> Qur'an," (Surih 36) and (Answered Questions page
>
> I'd like a full citation of this because it literally contradicts
> everything I've learned as a Baha'i.
That quote is not in "Some Answered Questions". A search in Ocean found
no such quote anywhere in the writings.
[Moderator: As was stated some weeks ago, page 28 of SAQ is about
a passage in the Qoran on astronomy. The quote is someone's
paraphrase of their understanding of this tiopic. Tom]
--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
Douglas McAdam
It was me who posted that quote and I searched all my Writings files
and could not find it. It is not in SAQ. But just now I found it in
the Maxwell Notes and I had it in an archive under Science Quotes. So
I don't think we can rely on it. Sorry about that.
However even if it is not the Writings I don't think it is entirely
wrong in that while we may find science disagreeing with certain
teachings that does not mean the teachings are wrong, it may mean that
science has not yet come up with enough evidence. In other words I
would not be absolute either way.
Another way to look at this is to consider what does it mean by
"teachings"? How can any science disagree with teachings such as
those that produce love and unity for example.
In any case I would not rely on that quote.
regards,
doug
mike3
> On 2009/02/09 1:44 PM mikera...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I must state that I read this quote below and was so disturbed by it
> > that I looked it up and so far haven't found it:
>
> > "If science discovers a fact contrary to the text of the teachings,
> > the Baha'is must adhere to the text of the teachings, even if it takes
> > a thousand years to prove it as it did with the text of the
> > Qur'an," (Surih 36) and (Answered Questions page
>
> > I'd like a full citation of this because it literally contradicts
> > everything I've learned as a Baha'i.
>
> That quote is not in "Some Answered Questions". A search in Ocean found
> no such quote anywhere in the writings.
>
> [Moderator: As was stated some weeks ago, page 28 of SAQ is about
> a passage in the Qoran on astronomy. The quote is someone's
> paraphrase of their understanding of this tiopic. Tom]
Ahhh... now that clears it up. I suppose then I should read the
original
and then figure out the answer to my Qs, and not go through what is
pretty much an _opinion piece_ of someone else.
mike3
wrote:
> Hi Mikeran-
> It was me who posted that quote and I searched all my Writings files
> and could not find it. It is not in SAQ. But just now I found it in
> the Maxwell Notes and I had it in an archive under Science Quotes. So
> I don't think we can rely on it. Sorry about that.
> However even if it is not the Writings I don't think it is entirely
> wrong in that while we may find science disagreeing with certain
> teachings that does not mean the teachings are wrong, it may mean that
> science has not yet come up with enough evidence. In other words I
> would not be absolute either way.
Perhaps not -- the question was not "oh, can we treat science as an
'infallible' source of information?" (to which the answer is obviously
"no" --
science itself even says so!) but "can we use scientific evidence to
aid our understanding of something, including a religious
matter?" (i.e.
to help us better understand/interpret those "teachings") It was not
an
"absolute" question. For example, we have mountains of scientific
evidence to prove, for example, that a face-up literal interpretation
for the Bible's Genesis story is wrong and that it cannot be taken as
a
literal account of history. We also have mountains of evidence for
"evolution" happening. So then would not it make sense to use that
evidence to steer one away from such interpretations, when trying to
figure out the real truth behind what it means?
> Another way to look at this is to consider what does it mean by
> "teachings"? How can any science disagree with teachings such as
> those that produce love and unity for example.
I'd doubt that it would, really.
> In any case I would not rely on that quote.
>
Ah, OK.
<snip>
mike...@yahoo.com
The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and
science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he
is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If
religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of
science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the
antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is
superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true
religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith
and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering
and vacillation.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 240)
There are too many quotes to count like this in different locations
(all reliable) where Abdu'l-Baha made his position on science and
religion clear beyond a shadow of a doubt. I would like to note that
these statements in particular are enumerated by Abdu'l-Baha as
central teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Yet it amazes me that there are
still Baha'is who crucify those enumerated teachings on a few if but
obscure passages where it would seem that either Abdu'l-Baha was
making a statment on anything from evolution to how we perceive color.
Abdu'l-Baha also makes clear that the sphere of religion is that of
ethics and spiritual transformation and that the domain of science is
the reality in which we live. Science will never be able to cross into
the sphere of spirit and any good scientist will immediately recognize
it as nothing less than a pseudo science if it does. With that said
there are areas of psychology that I know pose as science but when
examined closely are no more grounded in fact than the superstitous
religions of the past. So in all things Baha'is are enjoined to
question and investigate the truth and not blindly accept any dogmas,
scientific or religous.
You wouldn't hold einstein out to be a guru on religion even though
he may have had a few things to say on the matter and I can't see why
any Baha'i would hold Abdu'l-Baha to be an authority on
electromagnetism. Einstein didn't claim to be an authority on religion
and Abdu'l-Baha didn't claim to be a scientist, so why push the
matter? It is a given that the religions of the past and that includes
Christianity are riddled with superstition and horrific inconsisticies
in logic. You don't need to be a scientist to see this. The Baha'i
position will be to always apply logic and reason to the reading of
the Bible or any other religious book and look for the pearls of
spiritual knowledge and guidance and nothing more.
Shall man gifted with the power of reason unthinkingly follow and
adhere to dogma, creeds and hereditary beliefs which will not bear the
analysis of reason in this century of effulgent reality?
Unquestionably this will not satisfy men of science, for when they
find premise or conclusion contrary to present standards of proof and
without real foundation, they reject that which has been formerly
accepted as standard and correct and move forward from new
foundations.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 224)
Today sciences of the past are useless. The Ptolemaic system of
astronomy, numberless other systems and theories of scientific and
philosophical explanation are discarded, known to be false and
worthless. Ethical precedents and principles cannot be applied to
the needs of the modern world. Thoughts and theories of past ages are
fruitless now. Thrones and governments are crumbling and falling. All
conditions and requisites of the past unfitted and inadequate for the
present time, are undergoing radical reform. It is evident therefore
that counterfeit and spurious religious teaching, antiquated forms of
belief and ancestral imitations which are at variance with the
foundation of divine reality must also pass away and be reformed.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 228)
Douglas McAdam
I must have several pages of such quotes on my computer and it is
obvious that we need to harmonize science and religion amongst
ourselves.
If the infallible Manifestation of God tells us that all sciences come
from and return to God, that faith and reason and their products of
science and religion are fundamentally in harmony then they indeed are
in harmony and it is our interpretation and application of the
Writings that need adjustment. Also I doubt very much that
institutionally there is or can be any disharmony between the two. The
disharmony is only between certain Baha'is and non-Baha'is having
limited interpretations and insisting they are right.
The House has asked us to develop a new methodology for the study of
our Revelation because existing ones are not sufficient.
My belief is that we need to have our physical senses, intellectual
powers and our faith and intuition, i.e. all our knowing and loving
powers focused on the one single purpose of knowing and loving God, to
serve God and humanity and then we will develop true science and true
religion which will be in total harmony. In the past and currently I
keep running into scholars who, when faced with what they see as
contradictions, are too prone to saying their is an error in the
Writings or that the Writings regarding physical realities are only
metaphors or analogies or some other explanation. All I am saying is
that we should not be so quick in making absolute opinions either way.
God bless us all,
doug
Douglas McAdam
The argument between Creationists and Evolutionists is quite another
thing and from my perspective, as much as I accept the scientific
theory of evolution it has nothing to do with creation. Creation may
indeed have happened in six 24 hr. days for all we know but I think
there is enough evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.
As I have said before I have no idea what all this has to do with the
practicality of living the life of love and unity in the world. Why
waste all this time, effort and resources to argue about beliefs?
When we ourselves become united in our own individual capacities and
powers then maybe we will develop sciences and religions that are in
harmony.
New science meets old religions and there is a problem but the new
sciences meeting the new Baha'i religion should not be a problem
because the harmony of science and religion is a divinely revealed
principle by Baha'u'llah, the Infallible Source. I doubt He would
reveal such a principle and then reveal Writings that contradict
science.
It is we fallible human critters that cause all the problems, not the
Writings.
regards,
doug
mike3
wrote:
<snip>
> My belief is that we need to have our physical senses, intellectual
> powers and our faith and intuition, i.e. all our knowing and loving
> powers focused on the one single purpose of knowing and loving God, to
>
> serve God and humanity and then we will develop true science and true
>
> religion which will be in total harmony.
How does one do this, though?
> In the past and currently I
>
> keep running into scholars who, when faced with what they see as
> contradictions, are too prone to saying their is an error in the
> Writings or that the Writings regarding physical realities are only
> metaphors or analogies or some other explanation. All I am saying is ~ ú
>
> that we should not be so quick in making absolute opinions either way.
>
<snip>
So does this mean that literalism is the default and _preferred_ way
to
interpret a statement in the scripture?
Douglas McAdam
On Feb 13, 2009, at 2:26 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:49 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>> My belief is that we need to have our physical senses, intellectual
>> powers and our faith and intuition, i.e. all our knowing and loving
>> powers focused on the one single purpose of knowing and loving God,
>> to
>
>>
>> serve God and humanity and then we will develop true science and true
>>
>> religion which will be in total harmony.
>
> How does one do this, though?
Hi Mike-
Briefly it happens by accepting the Manifestation and then striving to
obey His commands. Obeying the Covenant is the way. But specifically
it means acquiring virtues. There is an application technique in the
Writings that helps us discover what virtues we need and how to
acquire them. We need to know who we are, to what purpose we exist,
how to live or lives and get along with others. It is a lifelong
process of Knowledge, Volition and Action. We need to satisfy our
physical, intellectual and spiritual needs by proper education. We
see something and it makes us feel something and the feeling prompts
action. To change our action (behavior) we must change our
perceptions (seeing on all three levels, i.e. senses, intellect and
faith, or Knowing powers)) into reality which in turn changes our
feeling or emotional energy (Love power) which in turn prompts proper
behavior that achieves our overall purpose of knowing and loving God,
to serve God and humanity, to create and maintain love and unity.
There are too many specifics to explain and emails are not the best
way to do this but briefly lets say we are feeling impatient. That is
a human fault that exists because we lack the virtue of patience. So
this test and difficulty and signalized the virtue we need to acquire
and thus we should give thanks to God for the test and ask for
assistance to acquire the virtue and the act accordingly. (knowledge,
volition and action)
>
>
>> In the past and currently I
>>
>> keep running into scholars who, when faced with what they see as
>> contradictions, are too prone to saying their is an error in the
>> Writings or that the Writings regarding physical realities are only
>> metaphors or analogies or some other explanation. All I am saying
>> is ~ ú
>
>>
>> that we should not be so quick in making absolute opinions either
>> way.
>>
> <snip>
>
> So does this mean that literalism is the default and _preferred_ way
> to
> interpret a statement in the scripture?
No I would not say that at all. Some things must be taken literally
such as the laws but other things must be taken in various contexts
such as a historical context, cultural context, in context with other
Writings, etc. And we should consult amongst ourselves in how best to
apply what we are learning, not argue in was that cause disunity.
Sometimes if we are focused on truth we can easily end up in disunity
because we tend to think and act in a process of debate about what is
right or wrong, either/or, pro/con, etc. but if we focus on arriving
at unity then the truth will come from that achievement of unity.
regards,
doug
>
>
mike3
wrote:
Hmm. Does this mean only a "Baha'i" could possibly be "on the
right course" or even on anything close, then? (As it *requires*
"accepting the Manifestation".)
>
>
>
>
> >> In the past and currently I
>
> >> keep running into scholars who, when faced with what they see as
> >> contradictions, are too prone to saying their is an error in the
> >> Writings or that the Writings regarding physical realities are only
> >> metaphors or analogies or some other explanation. All I am saying
> >> is ~ ú
>
> >> that we should not be so quick in making absolute opinions either
> >> way.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > So does this mean that literalism is the default and _preferred_ way
> > to
> > interpret a statement in the scripture?
>
> No I would not say that at all. Some things must be taken literally
> such as the laws but other things must be taken in various contexts
> such as a historical context, cultural context, in context with other
>
> Writings, etc. And we should consult amongst ourselves in how best to
>
> apply what we are learning, not argue in was that cause disunity.
>
> Sometimes if we are focused on truth we can easily end up in disunity
>
> because we tend to think and act in a process of debate about what is
>
> right or wrong, either/or, pro/con, etc. but if we focus on arriving
> at unity then the truth will come from that achievement of unity.
>
Thanks for the answer.
mike3
wrote:
Hmm. Does this mean only a "Baha'i" could possibly be "on the
right course" or even on anything close, then? (As it *requires*
"accepting the Manifestation".)
>
>
>
>
> >> In the past and currently I
>
> >> keep running into scholars who, when faced with what they see as
> >> contradictions, are too prone to saying their is an error in the
> >> Writings or that the Writings regarding physical realities are only
> >> metaphors or analogies or some other explanation. All I am saying
> >> is ~ ú
>
> >> that we should not be so quick in making absolute opinions either
> >> way.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > So does this mean that literalism is the default and _preferred_ way
> > to
> > interpret a statement in the scripture?
>
> No I would not say that at all. Some things must be taken literally
> such as the laws but other things must be taken in various contexts
> such as a historical context, cultural context, in context with other
>
> Writings, etc. And we should consult amongst ourselves in how best to
>
> apply what we are learning, not argue in was that cause disunity.
>
> Sometimes if we are focused on truth we can easily end up in disunity
>
> because we tend to think and act in a process of debate about what is
>
> right or wrong, either/or, pro/con, etc. but if we focus on arriving
> at unity then the truth will come from that achievement of unity.
>
Thanks for the answer.
mike3
wrote:
> Hi Mike-
> The argument between Creationists and Evolutionists is quite another
> thing and from my perspective, as much as I accept the scientific
> theory of evolution it has nothing to do with creation. Creation may
> indeed have happened in six 24 hr. days for all we know but I think
> there is enough evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.
> As I have said before I have no idea what all this has to do with the
> practicality of living the life of love and unity in the world. Why
> waste all this time, effort and resources to argue about beliefs?
>
> When we ourselves become united in our own individual capacities and
> powers then maybe we will develop sciences and religions that are in
> harmony.
>
> New science meets old religions and there is a problem but the new
> sciences meeting the new Baha'i religion should not be a problem
> because the harmony of science and religion is a divinely revealed
> principle by Baha'u'llah, the Infallible Source. I doubt He would
> reveal such a principle and then reveal Writings that contradict
> science.
>
> It is we fallible human critters that cause all the problems, not the
> Writings.
>
I guess what I was having trouble with was that there's those
statements
in the Baha'i scripture that "seem" to say evolution is "wrong", yet
there's
just too much *evidence* for it to reasonably ignore...
compx2
> statements
> in the Baha'i scripture that "seem" to say evolution is "wrong", yet
> there's
> just too much *evidence* for it to reasonably ignore.
I am having trouble with the thought that ANY Writings should
supercede reason, scientific method, logic, and all other God-given
method of investigation.
I am having trouble with Baha'is who say so, here and elsewhere. The
Writings don't say it. In fact the Writings clearly say the opposite.
Starting with the thought that Writings are going to steer you
straight in matters of biological evolution, or any other issue of
biology, mathematics, philosophy, physics or chemistry is starting
with error.
Abdu'l-Baha said many wise things on many subjects. We have His words
and trust that His thinking was impeccable, even infallible. But His
thoughts, His ideas, His explanations of subjects are what we trust,
not our thoughts about His words.
My religion, the Baha'i Faith, is about me and my relationship with
God and humanity, not about explaining science to scientists.
If 'Abdu'l-Baha had said "pigs fly" that would not make it true.
Neither if He said the opposite. Truth is true regardless Who said
it.
Understandinf His words as they relate to my life, my actions, my
deeds and words, is better than looking for an explanation of
scientific note based on erroneous assumptions.
In my mind, 'Abdu'l-Baha wished His listeners to understand that the
worlds we create with our ideas come from our humanity. Nothing but
humanity can understand, learn, and use human ideas. At some point
this uniqueness, humanity, came into existence. It did not grow from
monkeyness or aping or neanderthalness or any other of God's
creatures.
And we will not teach humanity, it is uniquely human. But we can show
the qualities of God to all of creation, if we so desire. Given the
choice I think anyone with God's sense would prefer to show His
attributes to showing our own, and that is the point.
--Kent
On Feb 14, 2:18 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:56 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Mike-
> > The argument between Creationists and Evolutionists is quite another
> > thing and from my perspective, as much as I accept the scientific
> > theory of evolution it has nothing to do with creation. Creation may
>
> > indeed have happened in six 24 hr. days for all we know but I think
> > there is enough evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.
> > As I have said before I have no idea what all this has to do with the ~d
> > practicality of living the life of love and unity in the world. Why
>
> > waste all this time, effort and resources to argue about beliefs?
>
> > When we ourselves become united in our own individual capacities and
> > powers then maybe we will develop sciences and religions that are in
> > harmony.
>
> > New science meets old religions and there is a problem but the new
> > sciences meeting the new Baha'i religion should not be a problem
> > because the harmony of science and religion is a divinely revealed
> > principle by Baha'u'llah, the Infallible Source. I doubt He would
> > reveal such a principle and then reveal Writings that contradict
> > science.
>
> > It is we fallible human critters that cause all the problems, not the
> > Writings.
>
> I guess what I was having trouble with was that there's those
> statements
> in the Baha'i scripture that "seem" to say evolution is "wrong", yet
> there's
> just too much *evidence* for it to reasonably ignore...- Hide quoted text
-
>
> - Show quoted text -
Douglas McAdam
I know of no statements in our Writings saying evolution is wrong.
Can you post such quotes please?
thanks,
doug
Douglas McAdam
On Feb 14, 2009, at 2:17 PM, mike3 wrote:
>
> Hmm. Does this mean only a "Baha'i" could possibly be "on the
> right course" or even on anything close, then? (As it *requires*
> "accepting the Manifestation".)
Hi Mike-
We have been down this road before and all I know is that it makes
sense to me that if God sends His Manifestation to recreate Creation
and endow it with a new potential and individuals do not accept and
obey Him then how can they possibly progress. To me it is like
offering a child the entire education needed for survival and the
child refuses and thus suffers from the lack of proper education.
Why would God bother sending His Manifestation if those who refuse Him
can still reach the same goal?
However, as I have also said several times it is not up to me to judge
all I can do is give you the quotes and offer my interpretation,
which, as you know, is from a limited capacity.
regards,
doug
>
[Moderator: We have been down this road before. Doug does not believe
nor does the Baha'i Faith teach (in my opinion) that people who have not
accepted Baha'u'llah can make no spiritual progress and or have no
virtue. The Baha'i Faith teaches that everyone has virtues and everyone
makes spiritual progress, each in their own way. If someone does
not believe this, let them explain why, otherwise perhaps enough
on this? Tom]
mike3
wrote:
Hmm. Then I'm stumped, because then he says above "how can they
possibly progress..." ::stumped::
Douglas McAdam
I agree with Tom because we have indeed been over this and it has been
explained in various ways and analogies so I feel that it is up to you
to state why you disagree with what I am saying.
Seems to me that you are having a problem with understanding why it is
mankind must accept Baha'u'llah. Is that what is bothering you? If
so then say so and we can discuss it.
regards,
doug
t h
are not
Baha'is cannot progress spiritually. That appears to be silly and I
submit that
Doug does not really believe that.
Doug?
We all know many people who are not Baha'is who are very spiritual and close
to God. It is very important to consider all of the Baha'i writings
when trying to
understand the significance and meaning of a particular passage.
Yours,
Tom
mike3
wrote:
> Dear Mike-
> I agree with Tom because we have indeed been over this and it has been
> explained in various ways and analogies so I feel that it is up to you
> to state why you disagree with what I am saying.
> Seems to me that you are having a problem with understanding why it is
> mankind must accept Baha'u'llah. Is that what is bothering you? If
> so then say so and we can discuss it.
Nope, that's not the idea that is bothering me. What's bothering me is
the
idea that someone with a *good heart* who devoted their life to
selflessly
helping the world, is going to be punished *eternally* and *terribly*
(or be
"zeroed out" on their "spiritual development") merely because they
failed to
consciously accept the messenger for *any* reason *even ones that
might
not be in their control* -- punished *as bad as Hitler* or
something... it just
doesn't seem fair or just... To me, what is in a person's heart would
seem to
be what is most important, not their conscious professed religious
belief, or
even their deeds... (although deeds should be good, without the light
in the
heart and spirit that is behind them, the deeds would still be empty.)
I've been trying to tell you this all this time but you don't seem to
get that this
is the idea that I am having trouble with and that's why I keep going
round and
round in circles about it!
Douglas McAdam
I am really getting tired of being misunderstood and dealing with this
subject.
There are degrees of spiritual development. Think about that.
doug
Douglas McAdam
say that will make a difference to you except that you need to post
some quotes to back up your position.
What happens to a soul that recognizes and obeys the Manifestation and
is this any different than a soul that rejects a Manifestation but
still leads a good life?
regards,
doug
Douglas McAdam
reference to only those who reject the Manifestation.
What is the point of a Manifestation appearing or in having the Day of
Judgement if a soul can reject the Manifestation and still develop
spiritually as well as those who accept and obey?
On a personal level my belief is that if a soul, say a Christian for
example, truly obeys Christ and lives the Christian life then that
soul would recognize the Return of Jesus, wouldn't they? How could a
soul develop spiritually by being obedient and then fail to recognize
the very Spirit they worshipped?
regards,
doug
[Moderator: I think the problem is with your statement here that if they truly
believe in Jesus that they will certainly accept Baha'u'llah. Logicly then
if they do not accept Baha'u'llah (for any reason) then they did not
truly believe in Jesus either. If you really want to say that good people
can progress spiritually regardless of which Manifestation they follow
then you need to stop with insisting that if they really follow any Manifestation
then they will also certainly recognize Baha'u'llah. People are complex
and life is complex. There are degrees of everything including belief and
acceptance. Your statement doesn't recognize that reality. Tom]
On Feb 16, 2009, at 9:58 AM, t h wrote:
mike3
wrote:
> You are still misunderstanding and there is nothing more I can do or
> say that will make a difference to you except that you need to post
> some quotes to back up your position.
I'm pretty sure it's a misunderstanding too as it doesn't seem right.
So then
what do you think would happen to them? Since it is a
*mis*understanding,
the *correct* understanding must be different: i.e. that the idea that
they
would be punished or feel as much pain as someone like Hitler must be
wrong...
which would mean they actually do better, despite the fact they never
accepted
the Manifestation in their earthly life time and may never even have
heard of
them (and neither, presumably, did Hitler)? But how does that jive
with what
you claimed earlier when you said that the Manifestation is so
essential to
progress? As it would be tantamount to saying that they had acquired
spiritual
progress, *without* the Manifestation...
mike...@yahoo.com
joins any faith with the selfish motivation of personal salvation and
the belief that others are eternally damned to hell, that person has
already failed to understand _any_ of the manifestations and may be
reckoned as somewhat spiritually dead (like a room without a light).
Arise, O wayfarer in the path of the Love of God, and aid thou His
Cause. Say: Barter not away this Youth, O people, for the vanities of
this world or the delights of heaven.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 37)
What was the motivation for Moses? was it personal salvation or the
love of God?
Consider Moses! Armed with the rod of celestial dominion, adorned with
the white hand of Divine knowledge, and proceeding from the Paran of
the love of God, and wielding the serpent of power and everlasting
majesty, He shone forth from the Sinai of light upon the world. He
summoned all the peoples and kindreds of the earth to the kingdom of
eternity, and invited them to partake of the fruit of the tree of
faithfulness.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 18)
The Bearers of the Trust of God are made manifest unto the peoples of
the earth as the Exponents of a new Cause and the Revealers of a new
Message. Inasmuch as these Birds of the celestial Throne are all sent
down from the heaven of the Will of God, and as they all arise to
proclaim His irresistible Faith, they, therefore, are regarded as one
soul and the same person. For they all drink from the one Cup of the
love of God, and all partake of the fruit of the same Tree of Oneness.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 50)
I have, all the days of My life, been at the mercy of Mine enemies,
and have suffered each day, in the path of the love of God, a fresh
tribulation. I have patiently endured until the fame of the Cause of
God was spread abroad on the earth.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 203)
Your only concern should be the love of God and not something as petty
and childish as who does or does not get saved. As Baha'is can't place
a limit on God let alone describe God, how absurd it would be for us
to even worry about who does or doesn't get saved. And better still
for us to decide each scenario?!? That would be the height of
arrogance and foolishness both on the part of the person asking the
question and on the part of the person claiming an answer. Two ants
arguing about where the foot's going to land.
Douglas McAdam
The issue is not about souls that have never been confronted with
Baha'u'llah, the issue is about those who have and who reject Him.
Do you really believe that any soul who rejects the Manifestation is
going to progress spiritually as well as one who does?
Here is another excerpt from His Tablet to Ahmad for you to consider.
"Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this
Beauty hath also turned away from the Messengers of the past and
showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity."
I have given you quotes and Mikeran has given you quotes. What more
do you need?
regards,
doug
mike3
> Actually I think there is a spin to this to consider. When a person
> joins any faith with the selfish motivation of personal salvation and
> the belief that others are eternally damned to hell, that person has
> already failed to understand _any_ of the manifestations and may be
> reckoned as somewhat spiritually dead (like a room without a light).
>
But what about someone whose motivations are NOT selfish, then what?
("Selfish" motivations don't seem to agree with the "good heart"
prerequisite
of the hypothetical person that I wanted to discuss.)
<snip>
Douglas McAdam
search in the path leading to the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he
must, before all else, cleanse and purify his heart, which is the seat
of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring
dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments
of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of
the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his
soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and
ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of
either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline
him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth. Even as thou
dost witness in this [193] day how most of the people, because of such
love and hate, are bereft of the immortal Face, have strayed far from
the Embodiments of the divine mysteries, and, shepherdless, are
roaming through the wilderness of oblivion and error. That seeker must
at all times put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the
earth, detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who
is the Lord of Lords. He must never seek to exalt himself above any
one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride
and vainglory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe
silence, and refrain from idle talk. For the tongue is a smouldering
fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth
the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and
soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the
effects of the latter endure a century.
Kitab-i-Iqan (3:112, page: [193])
Douglas McAdam
“The second of these spiritual standards which apply to the possessor
of knowledge is that he should be the defender of his faith. It is
obvious that these holy words do not refer exclusively to searching
out the implications of the Law, observing the forms of worship,
voiding greater and lesser sins, practicing the religious ordinances,
and by all these methods, protecting the Faith. They mean rather that
the whole population should be protected in every way; that every
effort should be exerted to adopt a combination of all possible
measures to raise up the Word of God, increase the number of
believers, promote the Faith of God and exalt it and make it
victorious over other religions. If, indeed, the Muslim religious
authorities had persevered along these lines as they ought to have
done, by now every nation on earth would have been gathered into the
shelter of the unity of God and the bright fire of "that He may make
it victorious over every other religion"
*23 would have flamed out like the sun in the midmost heart of the
world.
*23- Qu'ran 9:33;48:28,61:19 Abdu’l-Baha) page 41, Secret of Divine
Civilization
“…the whole population should be protected in every way; that every
effort should be exerted to adopt a combination of all possible
measures to raise up the Word of God, increase the number of
believers, promote the Faith of God and exalt it and make it
victorious over other religions. (Abdu’l-Baha) page 41, Secret of
Divine Civilization
mike3
wrote:
> Dear Mike-
>
> The issue is not about souls that have never been confronted with
> Baha'u'llah, the issue is about those who have and who reject Him.
> Do you really believe that any soul who rejects the Manifestation is
> going to progress spiritually as well as one who does?
I didn't say "as well as", obviously there must be some point, I was
asking if it would happen "at all", and so whether they'd therefore be
in
the same boat as Hitler.
To me, this is the idea that is crazy: that if the messenger is not
accepted,
*NO* progress is possible, and so you end up *no* better off being the
most
loving and caring person on the planet devoted to humanity, then where
you
would be if you were a cruel and sadistic dictator and war monger
running
death camps and stuff.
> Here is another excerpt from His Tablet to Ahmad for you to consider.
> "Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this
> Beauty hath also turned away from the Messengers of the past and
> showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity."
>
> I have given you quotes and Mikeran has given you quotes. What more
> do you need?
>
Because I keep seeming to getting the "crazy idea" I mentioned above
out of
it, yet I can't possibly see how that would be right, just, or fair,
and I sure hope
that it is not that black and white.
mike...@yahoo.com
> But what about someone whose motivations are NOT selfish, then what?
> ("Selfish" motivations don't seem to agree with the "good heart"
> prerequisite
> of the hypothetical person that I wanted to discuss.)
>
> <snip>
Think about it like this. There's this diet drug called hoodia. You
get it from a cactus out in africa. Some companies repackage the drug
and sell it in diluted quantities as different competing medicines.
But in reality you'd be best advised to grow your own cactus and take
it directly.
All the other religions of God contain the same active ingredient,
only they've been diluted with different customs and traditions that
if anything can work against their own active ingredient. True, you
could be a part of those religions and receive some measure of the
active ingredient, but really you're best advice is to go to the plant
and source (Baha'u'llah) for this day. Here the active ingredient is
the same, you may call it Jesus, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah..etc.
Now here's the catch, imagine that if you decided that the active
ingredient wasn't for you (whatever your motivation) and that really
you just wanted all the filler that comes in your pills instead. You'd
be rejecting the source of your weight loss and in the end you'd
wonder why it wasn't working for you.
Turning your back on Baha'u'llah is tantamount to turning your back
on Jesus, Muhammad..etc and the active ingredient in your own
religion.
It's one thing to take a medication and spend your life oblivious to
what actually is working in it for you, but another entirely to
specifically decide to filter out that part which is working and take
only the filler. In that case, you likely will have a hard road to
weight loss and likewise a lackluster development spiritually.
Douglas McAdam
I don't know what else to say Mike for I have explained this over and
over again in that we all progress spiritually according to our
actions on this plain of existence, i.e. by the acquisition of
virtues. However if a soul rejects and opposes the Manifestation of
God then obviously that soul is not going to progress as well as those
who do and who lead good lives.
This is according to my understanding and I don't know how better to
explain it all than by offering quote which I we have done and somehow
you still keep saying that it is not necessary to accept the
Manifestation it is only necessary to lead a good life.
Take a good look at the following quotes. I see nothing in any quotes
relevant to this topic that place those who reject Baha'u'llah but yet
lead good lives in the same category as a Hitler. God forbid.
IN THE NAME OF HIM WHO
IS THE SUPREME RULER
OVER ALL THAT HATH BEEN
AND ALL THAT IS TO BE
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory,
to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world.
These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the
other.
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
“The second of these spiritual standards which apply to the possessor
of knowledge is that he should be the defender of his faith. It is
obvious that these holy words do not refer exclusively to searching
out the implications of the Law, observing the forms of worship,
voiding greater and lesser sins, practicing the religious ordinances,
and by all these methods, protecting the Faith. They mean rather that
the whole population should be protected in every way; that every
effort should be exerted to adopt a combination of all possible
measures to raise up the Word of God, increase the number of
believers, promote the Faith of God and exalt it and make it
victorious over other religions. If, indeed, the Muslim religious
authorities had persevered along these lines as they ought to have
done, by now every nation on earth would have been gathered into the
shelter of the unity of God and the bright fire of "that He may make
it victorious over every other religion"
*23 would have flamed out like the sun in the midmost heart of the
world.
*23- Qu'ran 9:33;48:28,61:19 Abdu’l-Baha) page 41, Secret of Divine
Civilization
tsuki190
You could say that there is nothing in the Baha'i Writings to suggest
that people who try to live well will not progress spiritually. If you do
not want to say it then I will! :-)
Many Christian groups have a theme that if you do not join our sect
you may as well have not bothered cause your soul is condemned.
All your works are for naught. The Baha'i Faith does not support that
theme. It is not surprising that someone looking at the Baha'i Faith
might need substantial reassurance on that point.
Accepting or denying the Manifestation is certainly important. However
there are many levels of accepting and denying. There is a passage
which I cannot put my hand on right now where the Manifestation is
compared to a garden. Some people walk by but are too immersed
in their affairs to notice it. Some look in and see it is pretty but keep
going. Some go in and walk around for a bit and go on. Some stay
to be gardeners. Some become the garden. Something like that.
Perhaps there are super slow to super fast tracks of spiritual progress.
There are also many levels of denial. Your parents and your priest
warned you so you do not look at it. You do not consider it at all
because it would be inconvenient for you now. It looks OK but would
threaten your position so you deny it. You do not care what it is if
it threatens your power over others. You know that it is from God
but it might decrease your importance so you attack it. We can
only guess why someone might be denying or ignoring the
Manifestation (though we might generally do better not worrying
about their spiritual status).
Presumably someone who knew it was true and attacked it would
suffer greatly in terms of spiritual progress. Someone who
could not free himself from his beliefs and fears to look at another
spiritual path but was doing his best to help all those around him
might make considerable progress compared to a hedonist who
fully subscribed to "he who dies with the most toys wins" and
devoted all his attention to hurting people and taking as much as
possible. Two caveats on all this. Its just my opinion and we can
never really know why someone else is making their choices.
Tom
Douglas McAdam
On Feb 21, 2009, at 2:13 PM, tsuki190 wrote:
> Doug,
> You could say that there is nothing in the Baha'i Writings to suggest
> that people who try to live well will not progress spiritually. If
> you do
> not want to say it then I will! :-)
Hi Tom-
So how do you interpret the following -
> The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
> of Him
> Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
> laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
> and the
> world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all
> good;
> and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
> he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
> reacheth
> this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory,
> to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world.
> These twin
> duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other.
>
> (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
This appears to be saying that one must achieve both duties, can't
have one without the other.
However, as I have said many times, it is not up to me to judge
another soul. But when the question was posed I will post these
quotes and offer my obvious limited opinion.
regards,
doug
tsuki190
unto all good. It also clearly says that doing good deeds does not
substitute for recognizing Baha'u'llah, i.e. that doing good deeds is not
its equivalent. Similarly recognizing Baha'u'llah does not substitute
for doing righteous deeds. It is far better to do both. Doing only one
(to whatever degree) and the other not at all is not so good.
It DOES NOT SAY that someone who does righteous deeds but does
not recognize Baha'u'llah will make no spiritual progress. This is what
Mike asks about. The Writings pretty much say that whatever we do
is less than perfect and is only accepted by God's grace anyway.
I would suggest that this includes our efforts to fully recognize
Baha'u'llah - our degree of recognition is only a feeble glimmer
compared to how Abdul-Baha or Shoghi Effendi recognized Him.
So that is how I interpret it per Mike's question.
Cheers,
Tom
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Douglas McAdam
<dougla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2009, at 2:13 PM, tsuki190 wrote:
>
>> Doug,
>> You could say that there is nothing in the Baha'i Writings to suggest
>> that people who try to live well will not progress spiritually. If you do
>> not want to say it then I will! :-)
>
> Hi Tom-
> So how do you interpret the following -
>>
>> The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of
>> Him
>> Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
>> laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and
>> the
>> world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good;
>> and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
>> he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
>> reacheth
>> this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory,
>> to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These
>> twin
>> duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other.
>>
>> (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
>
mike3
wrote:
> Dear Mike-
> I don't know what else to say Mike for I have explained this over and
>
> over again in that we all progress spiritually according to our
> actions on this plain of existence, i.e. by the acquisition of
> virtues. However if a soul rejects and opposes the Manifestation of
> God then obviously that soul is not going to progress as well as those
>
> who do and who lead good lives.
That would seem less black and white, however...
> This is according to my understanding and I don't know how better to
> explain it all than by offering quote which I we have done and somehow
>
> you still keep saying that it is not necessary to accept the
> Manifestation it is only necessary to lead a good life.
>
(I'm not saying it is/isn't "necessary", I'm saying it is not
"necessary" to
*not be in the same boat as Hitler*.
P.S. I'm not just talking about deeds but heart as well.)
> Take a good look at the following quotes. I see nothing in any quotes
>
> relevant to this topic that place those who reject Baha'u'llah but yet
>
> lead good lives in the same category as a Hitler. God forbid.
>
> IN THE NAME OF HIM WHO
>
> IS THE SUPREME RULER
>
> OVER ALL THAT HATH BEEN
>
> AND ALL THAT IS TO BE
>
> The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
> of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
>
> laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
> and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
> unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
>
> he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
> reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory,
>
> to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world.
> These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the
> other.
>
> (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
>
....this, the actual quote from the scripture, makes it seem very black
and white: "neither is acceptable without the other". So then it seems
that
only when both are done is it "acceptable". Therefore being a good
hearted
person who failed to accept (not: not necessarily "reject", just
"failed to
accept") the messenger (i.e. failing 1 duty) is "not acceptable", just
as being
some cruel dictator or whatever (i.e. failing both). It doesn't say it
is "more
acceptable" or "less acceptable". It just seems to make it really
black and
white. This is where the problem is. It doesn't suggest any "degrees"
of
development, it sounds black and white.
> “The second of these spiritual standards which apply to the possessor
>
> of knowledge is that he should be the defender of his faith. It is
> obvious that these holy words do not refer exclusively to searching
> out the implications of the Law, observing the forms of worship,
> voiding greater and lesser sins, practicing the religious ordinances,
>
> and by all these methods, protecting the Faith. They mean rather that
>
> the whole population should be protected in every way; that every
> effort should be exerted to adopt a combination of all possible
> measures to raise up the Word of God, increase the number of
> believers, promote the Faith of God and exalt it and make it
> victorious over other religions. If, indeed, the Muslim religious
> authorities had persevered along these lines as they ought to have
> done, by now every nation on earth would have been gathered into the
> shelter of the unity of God and the bright fire of "that He may make
> it victorious over every other religion"
> *23 would have flamed out like the sun in the midmost heart of the
> world.
>
> *23- Qu'ran 9:33;48:28,61:19 Abdu’l-Baha) page 41, Secret of Divine
>
> Civilization
>
Although I don't think "all possible measures" includes war, however.
See,
so you can't take these things as literally and/or as isolated as I've
been doing.
Perhaps that is why I keep getting hung up?
tsuki190
Yes that passage doesn't suggest (or deny) that spiritual development
has degrees. However Abdul-Baha writes uses the analogy of a baby
developing in the womb for spiritual development. He is suggesting a
gradual process I think. We develop our spiritual capacities over a
lifetime based on all the choices we make. Trying to truly recognize
the station of Baha'u'llah is certainly one thing we can choose to do.
And we can hope that God will graciously accept our efforts at doing
that, however inadequate. Or we may choose to direct our efforts in
other areas and hope that God will recognize that we are doing the
best that we can.
You are right. War is not the way to advance the Cause of God.
In another passage Baha'u'llah enjoined the use of the pen rather
than the sword to promote his Cause and win over the hearts of
men. We must try to look at any part of the Baha'i Scriptures in
the light of all the other parts to resolve questions about what it might
mean. We can also send questions to the Universal House of
Justice or to their research department.
Tom
Douglas McAdam
However what do you think the Writings say about those who reject the
Manifestation of God?
regards,
doug
tsuki190
and anywhere. Just as its a bad idea to live a life of destruction and lies.
It is best to accept God and try to live a good life under the divine laws.
Tom
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Douglas McAdam
<dougla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Yes, I agree Tom.
> However what do you think the Writings say about those who reject the
> Manifestation of God?
> regards,
> doug
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:41 AM, tsuki190 wrote:
>
mike3
wrote:
> But, O my brother, when a true seeker determineth to take the step of
> search in the path leading to the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he
> must, before all else, cleanse and purify his heart, which is the seat
> of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring
> dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments
> of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of
> the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his
> soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and
> ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of
> either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline
> him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth.
Does this mean one should be without all emotion like a "Vulcan" or
something?
> Even as thou
> dost witness in this [193] day how most of the people, because of such
> love and hate, are bereft of the immortal Face, have strayed far from
> the Embodiments of the divine mysteries, and, shepherdless, are
> roaming through the wilderness of oblivion and error. That seeker must
> at all times put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the
> earth, detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who
> is the Lord of Lords.
Does this mean one should go to asceticism and not bother with service
to those people (after all they must be "renounced", remember)? How
does
this jive with the idea that one _shouldn't_ do that?
> He must never seek to exalt himself above any
> one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride
> and vainglory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe
> silence, and refrain from idle talk.
But "observe silence" makes it sound like _all_ talk is bad, which
would
be strange, for why else do we have a mouth?
> For the tongue is a smouldering
> fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth
> the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and
> soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the
> effects of the latter endure a century.
Does this mean even the "victim" of the wrong talk will _never_ be
able
to recover?
Douglas McAdam
It says "...leading to the KNOWLEDGE of the Ancient of Days...(The
Manifestation). That knowledge is not something that can be
understood and applied by souls who are still in a state of
materialistic conditioning, whose hearts are still attracted or
distracted by certain emotions. So I would simply say "no" to all the
questions you have asked but to explain why would take more than a
simple email because this Tablet, like so many other quotes, must be
taken in a larger context that just this one Tablet.
regards,
doug
mike...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Yes, I agree Tom.
> However what do you think the Writings say about those who reject the
> Manifestation of God?
> regards,
> doug
>
>Yes, I agree Tom.
>However what do you think the Writings say about those who reject the
>Manifestation of God?
I think this is where the masses are getting into trouble. Since God
is one, His religion must be one. So it follows that all of the other
religions are in fact that same religion of God. The ultimate sin is
to divide God or to divide His religion. I think the majority of
Christians when pressed will accept that Jews or Muslims are also
going to heaven (at least I hope). At the root of this belief is a
silent but powerful acknowledgment of the fact that all religions are
one despite what their ministers may preach. But I think the
ministers or some of the more die-hards who reject this idea have gone
astray and they may be accounted as those who have rejected God
because in essence by dividing the religion of God and inferring that
Allah is different than God, this act negates the all powerful
supremacy of God.
The bottom line in my opinion is this. A person may enter or leave
the Baha'i Faith for the superficially wrong or right reasons, and
still not face the judgement as having failed to recognize God. But a
person who leaves the Baha'i Faith with the idea that we are damned or
judges that Baha'is are in a false religion, that person can be
accounted as having denied the fundamental unity of God. Likewise, the
person who is a member of any faith (including ours) and clings to the
idea of personal salvation while others are damned, that person, no
matter how sincere has traded God's religion for man's religion. It's
complicated and I would never presume to be the judge in any of these
cases, because who really knows all of the factors in a persons life.
A person may be learning disabled and incapable of understanding this
concept. So the truth is that while I can't pronounce judgment for
others, I can counsel them about what I know and I can be weary that I
myself never assume such a position of arrogance.
mike...@yahoo.com
>to those people (after all they must be "renounced", remember)? How
>does this jive with the idea that one _shouldn't_ do that?
>But "observe silence" makes it sound like _all_ talk is bad, which
>would be strange, for why else do we have a mouth?
>Does this mean even the "victim" of the wrong talk will _never_ be
>able to recover?
Mike, I think the first problem that strikes me here is the in that
way in which you are attempting to understand the Baha'i Faith.
Baha'u'llah wrote volumes on wisdom. This is unique quality of our
faith, Baha'u'llah was not a fan of literalism, so why use literalism
to read him?
Should they say: "These words are indeed from God, and have no
interpretation other than their outward meaning", then what objection
can they raise against the unbelievers among the people of the Book?
For when the latter saw the aforementioned passages in their
Scriptures and heard the literal interpretations of their divines,
they refused to recognize God in those who are the Manifestations of
His unity, the Exponents of His singleness, and the Embodiments of
His sanctity, and failed to believe in them and submit to their
authority. The reason was that they did not see the sun darken, or the
stars of heaven fall to the ground, or the angels visibly descend upon
the earth, and hence they contended with the Prophets and Messengers
of God. Nay, inasmuch as they found them at variance with their own
faith and creed, they hurled against them such accusations of
imposture, folly, waywardness, and misbelief as I am ashamed to
recount. Refer to the Qur'án, that thou mayest find mention of all
this and be of them that understand its meaning. Even to this day do
these people await the appearance of that which they have learned from
their doctors and imbibed from their divines. Thus do they say: "When
shall these signs be made manifest, that we may believe?" But if this
be the case, how could ye refute their arguments, invalidate their
proofs, and challenge them concerning their faith and their
understanding of their Books and the sayings of their leaders?
(Baha'u'llah, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 10)
Another example, there are a multitude of references to wine in our
texts:
This is the Day whereon He Who is the Revealer of the names of God
hath stepped out of the Tabernacle of glory, and proclaimed unto all
who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth: "Put away the
cups of Paradise and all the life-giving waters they contain, for lo,
the people of Baha have entered the blissful abode of the Divine
Presence, and quaffed the wine of reunion, from the chalice of the
beauty of their Lord, the All-Possessing, the Most High
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 32)
But it's clear that Baha'is aren't allowed to drink wine. Do you see
my point? You can't apply the type of logic you are using here. To do
so comes across as childish. It might work on a fundamentalist, but is
hardly applicable to a group which doesn't see things in 'black and
white' but rather as complex.
They that have hearts to understand, they that have quaffed the Wine
of love, who have not for one moment gratified their selfish desires,
will behold, resplendent as the sun in its noon-tide glory, those
tokens, testimonies, and evidences that attest the truth of this
wondrous Revelation, this transcendent 253 and divine Faith.
Reflect, how the people have rejected the Beauty of God, and have
clung unto their covetous desires. Notwithstanding all these
consummate verses, these unmistakable allusions, which have been
revealed in the "Most weighty Revelation," the Trust of God amongst
men, and despite these evident traditions, each more manifest than the
most explicit utterance, the people have ignored and repudiated their
truth, and have held fast to the letter of certain traditions which,
according to their understanding, they have found inconsistent with
their expectations, and the meaning of which they have failed to
grasp. They have thus shattered every hope, and deprived themselves of
the pure wine of the All-Glorious, and the clear and incorruptible
waters of the immortal Beauty.
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 252)
The Baha'i writings need to examined in their totality to derive the
intended meanings, otherwise you're wasting your time.
A Bahá'í denies no religion; he accepts the Truth in all, and would
die to uphold it. He loves all men as his brothers, of whatever class,
of whatever race or nationality, of whatever creed or colour, whether
good or bad, rich or poor, beautiful or hideous. He commits no
violence; if he is struck he does not return the blow. He calls
nothing bad, following the example of the Lord Bahá'u'lláh. As a
safeguard against intemperance he does not drink wine or spirits.
Bahá'u'lláh has said it is not good for a sane man to take that which
will destroy his health and sense.
The religion of God has two aspects in this world. The spiritual (the
real) and the formal (the outward). The formal side changes, as man
changes from age to age. The spiritual side which is the Truth, never
changes. The Prophets and Manifestations of God bring always the same
teaching; at first men cling to the Truth but after a time they
disfigure it. The Truth is distorted by man-made outward forms and
material laws. The veil of substance and worldliness is drawn across
the reality of Truth.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 56)
mike...@yahoo.com
>to those people (after all they must be "renounced", remember)? How
>does this jive with the idea that one _shouldn't_ do that?
>But "observe silence" makes it sound like _all_ talk is bad, which
>would be strange, for why else do we have a mouth?
>Does this mean even the "victim" of the wrong talk will _never_ be
>able to recover?
Mike, I think the first problem that strikes me here is the in that
mike3
wrote:
> Hi Mike3-
>
> It says "...leading to the KNOWLEDGE of the Ancient of Days...(The
> Manifestation). That knowledge is not something that can be
> understood and applied by souls who are still in a state of
> materialistic conditioning, whose hearts are still attracted or
> distracted by certain emotions.
Which is different than _having_ the emotions. I'm most curious though
about the bit about "He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant
of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly
incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth."
What about
the love of God? Isn't that supposed to be the real reason for
following
religion?
> So I would simply say "no" to all the
> questions you have asked but to explain why would take more than a
> simple email because this Tablet, like so many other quotes, must be
> taken in a larger context that just this one Tablet.
>
So I guess I'm off base again, because of my two fallacious
assumptions:
1. everything must be taken at its exactly literal meaning
(no metaphors, no analogies, no hyperbole, none of
that)
2. the meaning when taken in isolation is important and so
can't be overridden by the meaning when taken as part
of the whole when that differs
But these are *wrong*.
<snip>
mike3
> >Does this mean one should go to asceticism and not bother with service
> >to those people (after all they must be "renounced", remember)? How
> >does this jive with the idea that one _shouldn't_ do that?
> >But "observe silence" makes it sound like _all_ talk is bad, which
> >would be strange, for why else do we have a mouth?
> >Does this mean even the "victim" of the wrong talk will _never_ be
> >able to recover?
>
> Mike, I think the first problem that strikes me here is the in that
> way in which you are attempting to understand the Baha'i Faith.
> Baha'u'llah wrote volumes on wisdom. This is unique quality of our
> faith, Baha'u'llah was not a fan of literalism, so why use literalism
> to read him?
>
So would this therefore mean that it one should not take the bit
"observe silence" to be truly literal -- i.e. that that an absolute
without qualification where at no point is speech permissible (which
would be absurdity). That the quote is referring to those times
when it is *not* permissible.
That's right -- so then we must admit that the "wine" phrase is a
metaphor.
> You can't apply the type of logic you are using here. To do
> so comes across as childish. It might work on a fundamentalist, but is
> hardly applicable to a group which doesn't see things in 'black and
> white' but rather as complex.
>
> They that have hearts to understand, they that have quaffed the Wine
> of love, who have not for one moment gratified their selfish desires,
> will behold, resplendent as the sun in its noon-tide glory, those
> tokens, testimonies, and evidences that attest the truth of this
> wondrous Revelation, this transcendent 253 and divine Faith.
> Reflect, how the people have rejected the Beauty of God, and have
> clung unto their covetous desires. Notwithstanding all these
> consummate verses, these unmistakable allusions, which have been
> revealed in the "Most weighty Revelation," the Trust of God amongst
> men, and despite these evident traditions, each more manifest than the
> most explicit utterance, the people have ignored and repudiated their
> truth, and have held fast to the letter of certain traditions which,
> according to their understanding, they have found inconsistent with
> their expectations, and the meaning of which they have failed to
> grasp. They have thus shattered every hope, and deprived themselves of
> the pure wine of the All-Glorious, and the clear and incorruptible
> waters of the immortal Beauty.
>
> (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 252)
>
> The Baha'i writings need to examined in their totality to derive the
> intended meanings, otherwise you're wasting your time.
>
So then is it OK to take the "observe silence" statement as meaning
something other than its absolute literal meaning -- i.e. it does
*not*
mean there is no appropriate time for and type of speech?
t h
True Seeker (and the Seven Valleys)
are thoroughly mystical works. They are among my most favorites of
Baha'u'llah's works!
If I am attached to MY love of God then I may never reach a true love
for God. I suggest reading the
Seven Valleys, especially the Valley of Love. In the first Valley
(Search) we see:
One must judge of search by the standard of the Majnún of Love. 11
<http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SVFV/svfv-1.html#fn11> It is related
that one day they came upon Majnún sifting the dust, and his tears
flowing down. They said, “What doest thou?” He said, “I seek for La
ylí.”
They cried, “Alas for thee! Laylí is of pure spirit, and thou seekest
her in the dust!” He said, “I seek her everywhere; haply somewhere I
shall find her.”
Yea, although to the wise it be shameful to 7 seek the Lord of Lords in
the dust, yet this betokeneth intense ardor in searching. “Whoso seeket
h
out a thing with zeal shall find it.” 12
<http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SVFV/svfv-1.html#fn12>
If we are too attached to our understandings of mystical ideas, then we
may never perceive higher levels of understanding.
Tom
Douglas McAdam
“O MAN OF TWO VISIONS! Close one eye and open the other. Close one to
the world and all that is therein, and open the other to the hallowed
beauty of the Beloved.” HWP 26 #12
mac...@beloved.com
mac...@beloved.com
>
> So I guess I'm off base again, because of my two fallacious
> assumptions:
>
> 1. everything must be taken at its exactly literal meaning
> (no metaphors, no analogies, no hyperbole, none of
> that)
>
> 2. the meaning when taken in isolation is important and so
> can't be overridden by the meaning when taken as part
> of the whole when that differs
>
> But these are *wrong*.
>
> <snip>
Hi Mike,
I think you are dealing with a very important topic here and I thank
you for keeping this discussion alive. For those of us who accept
something as Scripture the question of how we read it is vital.
I would suggest that only the first of your two assumptions is
fallacious and even then not completely. I don't believe there is any
doubt that Baha'u'llah used figures of speech - metaphors and
hyperbole included. He also used analogies, even fables, and accepted
tales and ideas that were commonly thought of as historically or
scientifically true to make His points without showing much concern as
to whether they were actually true. However, I think we must apply the
judgment of authorial intent. We must try, on the evidence of the
text, to determine whether Baha'u'llah was deliberately using a figure
of speech or other non-literal literary device. If so we should take
it as such and not attempt to pin a literal meaning on it. But we
shouldn't discard passages we don't like as metaphorical simply
because we don't like them. We really must detach ourselves from our
prior assumptions, and try and form the best judgment we can make as
to whether a passage is intended literally or not and then read it
from that viewpoint. If we don't like what it says we shouldn't
'cheat' and revise our opinion as to the literalness of the passage.
A difficult here is that few of us are fluent in the original
languages and none of us are really familiar with the linguistic
cultural context they were written. Indeed few of us still have
familiarity with the linguistic culture they were translated into.
Many of these passages were translated into English 80 or so years ago
and more recent ones have deliberately echoed the style of those
translations. What may have been obviously a metaphor then, or even a
clichéd metaphor, may not be so apparent now. Our primary translator,
Shoghi Effendi, though totally fluent in English was not a native
speaker and like many in his situation loved and was heavily
influenced by English from an earlier period. For example one of his
favourite authors has been said to be Gibbon who published around
1780. Also don't assume a modern Persian can necessarily appreciate
the Writings better than you. They have an obvious advantage but only
if they are fluent in Arabic as well as Farsi and they face the same
problems of understanding a different time as we do. Some scholars can
and will help us but we must remember that scholars are human too and
may well have their own predefined assumptions and their own positions
to defend. Sen who occasionally posts here is one whose explications
of text I have always found helpful.
Your second point which you accepted as 'wrong' was in my opinion
completely 'right'. The meaning of a quote in isolation is important
and can't be overridden by the whole anymore than the whole can be
overridden by a single quote. There are several ways to resolve such
seeming contradictions. I personally find it good practice whenever
one is struck by a particular idea or phrase from Baha'u'llah to
search His Writings for another quote which lends support to an
opposite or at least different point of view on the subject. They are
usually not hard to find. One conclusion I have come to is that
Baha'u'llah recognised that seemingly contradictory views are usually
caused by small shifts in the meanings of words or the context they
are being used in. There is a great example in "The Tabernacle of
Unity" where Baha'u'llah is asked directly which of four clearly
contradictory schools of thought is correct. Baha'u'llah gives an
answer selecting one as 'closer to righteousness' but goes on to
clarify that 'one can, however, provide a justification...' for the
other schools of thought. My currently favourite quote from
Baha'u'llah is "In one sense, it is limited; in another, it is exalted
beyond all limitations." The sentence before it runs it close.
"....know thou that the comprehension of this matter dependeth upon
the observer himself." Baha'u'llah is not about laying down
inflexible dogma - He is about understanding people and their thoughts
and seeing the value in their ideas even when they are contradictory.
I believe search engines are a great boon to our reading of
Baha'u'llah as before we allow our understanding of a passage to
harden into a dogma in our minds we can search for all or at least a
good number of passages dealing with the same topic or similar topics
and form a broader view of the whole range of human thought that
Baha'u'llah was prepared to understand and engage with.
One has to be careful though when understanding things in isolation
that one doesn't isolate too much and in so doing change the meaning
of the author. For instance, if I said "I don't think water is
alcoholic" it would obviously be wrong to imply John says "...water
is alcoholic." even though it is an exact quote.
Bearing the above in mind I would answer your questions about the True
Seeker as follows, and remember that I feel contradictory answers
might well be containing different truths.
"He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate
may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or
that hate repel him away from the truth."
Does this mean one should be without all emotion like a "Vulcan" or
something?
Yes, in isolation it does but a quick check will clearly show that
Baha'u'llah also spoke approvingly of "love". E.g. "Deal ye one with
another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and
fellowship.". How to resolve without rejecting either? I think that
then, as now, 'love' covered a wide range of meanings. Consider the
two sentences :"I love mountaineering" and "We should love humanity"
and I think we can see a difference between love as a personal
preference and love as an ethical desirable. When 'love' as in this
passage is associated with "hate" we are I think talking about
something close to an obsession, a preference that occupies the mind
and perhaps the soul to an extent that blocks out other and perhaps
better things. This is based on the English translation - it would be
interesting to know if 'love' is a consistent translation for a single
word or whether the original had words with different nuances.
" That seeker must at all times put his trust in God, must renounce
the peoples of the earth, detach himself from the world of dust, and
cleave unto Him Who is the Lord of Lords."
Does this mean one should go to asceticism and not bother with service
to those people (after all they must be "renounced", remember)? How
does this jive with the idea that one _shouldn't_ do that?
Again I suspect nuances in the word. Check yout own favourite
dictionary but I've just checked half a dozen online and while
'renounce' can mean 'to have nothing more to do with' it also has a
more formal meaning relating to formally giving up authority or
allegiance as in "The Duke renounced his title' or 'She renounced her
citizenship'. I read this passage as not being about avoiding people
but of clearly deciding in ones own mind that no earthly loyalty or
allegiance takes precedence over or can be allowed to interfere with
one's acceptance of the Lordship of God. The phrase 'the peoples of
the earth' is possibly significant in that it might indicate that we
are not talking about individuals at all but allegiance based on
tribal, ethnic, or national groupings.
" one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of
pride and vainglory, must cling unto patience and resignation,
observe
silence, and refrain from idle talk."
But "observe silence" makes it sound like _all_ talk is bad, which
would be strange, for why else do we have a mouth?
Certainly, one can easily find quotations from Baha'u'llah in praise
of speech. (try searching under the rather old-fashioned word
'utterance'). I think you might be practising too much isolation
here. The context of clinging unto patience and resignation and
avoiding idle talk seems to me to putting this in the situation of one
who is under attack or suffering hardship or perhaps just in a
trivialising social situation where there is no chance to say anything
worthwhile. Note that immediately following this he discusses 'excess
of speech'.
" For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly
poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the
tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth
but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century."
Does this mean even the "victim" of the wrong talk will _never_ be
able to recover?
I think one would have to see 'endure a century' as a figure of
speech. Improbably precise and improbably long periods of time are a
common hyperbole in many languages to indicate 'a long, long time'.
I think the whole passage (e.g. "devoureth both heart and soul") can
be seen as hyperbolically intensified to indicate just how serious
this is. Backbiting, and other ill considered talk is very very
dangerous.
Just my thoughts. My main idea is that the best way to understand
Baha'u'llah is to muse on the contradictions in His writings but other
methods may work for other people.
mike...@yahoo.com
And yet again in another connection: "Beware lest ye shed the blood of
any one. Unsheathe the sword of your tongue from the scabbard of
utterance, for therewith ye can conquer the citadels of men's hearts.
We have abolished the law to wage holy war against each other. God's
mercy hath, verily, encompassed all created things, if ye do but
understand."
And yet again in another connection: "O people! Spread not disorder in
the land, and shed not the blood of any one, and consume not the
substance of others wrongfully, neither follow every accursed
prattler."
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 24)
Clearly Baha'u'llah is advocating that we use speech and
(unfortunately) not swords. Perhaps now re-reading the first passage
may give you better insight into His statement about observing
silence. The key to understanding Baha'u'llah (as He himself has
stated) is wisdom, logic and reason. The Iqan is a good book for a
synopsis on how he guides us in our way to read him as well as other
manifestations.
mike3
*Un*fortunately not swords? War is bad.
I think what is screwing up the reasoning is that I have this notion
that the
face up literal isolated interpretation must be "true", even though it
appears
to be contradicted by other things.
tsuki190
I do not know why he got the (unfortunately) in there. :-) I doubt he is
eager
to behead any unbelievers that he comes across - it would keep him too
busy these days.
Pretty much everything needs to be considered in light of the rest of the
writings. Some things also need to be taken in the context of 19th century
mid-east culture. One example is the admonition to not mutter prayers
while walking about town. This refers to the practice of some shia clerics
who constantly muttered things in a low voice so that they would seem
to always be in a holy state of mind, that was regarded as pretentious
and hypocritical.
Some things are clearly not meant to be reinterpreted but they are
somewhat rare. See the lines at the end of the tablet to the true seeker
where Baha'u'llah says that a 1000 years is really a 1000 years.
Much of Baha'u'llah's writings are highly mystical, they may be intended
as an aid to gaining a higher understanding of religious matters. Think of
the zen practice of giving koans to students (the sound of one hand clappin
g
or the gateless gate, etc.) to surprise them out of their usual patterns of
consciousness into something different. The Seven Valleys perhaps falls in
this category - of course it WAS written for sufis originally. I see the f
irst
four valleys (of the seven) as mystical (not literal at all) and extremely
important for understanding our relationship to the divine. Have you read
that little book?
Then there are all the laws and ordinances which are probably not meant
metaphorically. However again consider the context - we are to rely on the
Universal House of Justice to legislate how they are to be implemented
now and later as human society develops over the centuries.
Tom
Douglas McAdam
You might as well get used to this phenomenon in Holy Scripture for it
takes time for us to become spiritually transformed to the point where
we can perceive the reality of the Scriptures and how best to apply
them. Strange that we admit we need help and pray for it but when we
finally get that help we then decide that our views are the standard
by which we will evaluate the divine assistance received. What
"appears" to be contradictions are due to our limited capacity and as
we become more deepened we see how these are unified. There are two
ways to view a thing, i.e. from our Personal View which is the result
of the conditioning of growing up in a materialistic society and
exposed to often unrealistic education and experiences and the Overall
View that comes from the Revelations of God.
My own belief is that if God's Manifestation has revealed to us all
truth and given us the principle of the harmony of faith and reason
and science and religion then there is no way He can reveal anything
that is contrary to reason. The problem, as I see it, is that our
knowing powers of physical senses, intellect and our power of faith
must all be directed to and focused on the realization of the
principle of unity in order for us to have the full and most efficient
use of these powers which in turn will produce sciences and religions
that are in harmony.
regards,
doug
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
mike...@yahoo.com
>I do not know why he got the (unfortunately) in there. :-) I doubt he is
>busy these days.
Beheading is soo french revolution and labor intensive, to be pc you'd
need a device that's wind powered in a way that wont harm any
birds. ;-)
What's important to appreciate is that in the original language of
either persian or arabic, Baha'u'llahs revelations (texts) have
multiple meanings and in some cases add up using numerology. Even the
unbelievers would have a hard time contriving its' equivalent and
should be humbled by the display of intellect. Imagine that I were to
write something in english, that would not only carry multiple
meanings but also posses a mathematical message. Now imagine that I
condense this into a type of poetry. This would be challenging by any
standards Divine or not.
So we can now appreciate that special role that the Guardian took on
by translating Baha'u'llah into english. At this point it would be
trivializing all of the other information lost in that translation to
impose a single literal value to any of Baha'u'llahs sentences. And
while it's true that the one statement is correct, what is lost in the
translations are the other levels to that text that give it some
context in the original language. That's why you end having to cross
reference some statements to derive a better meaning. It isn't fair to
state that any one sentence is false, or incomplete, only that your
looking at a translation that gives it the best approximate meaning in
our language.
mike3
wrote:
> Hi Mike-
> You might as well get used to this phenomenon in Holy Scripture for it
> takes time for us to become spiritually transformed to the point where
> we can perceive the reality of the Scriptures and how best to apply
> them. Strange that we admit we need help and pray for it but when we
> finally get that help we then decide that our views are the standard
> by which we will evaluate the divine assistance received. What
> "appears" to be contradictions are due to our limited capacity and as
> we become more deepened we see how these are unified. There are two
> ways to view a thing, i.e. from our Personal View which is the result
> of the conditioning of growing up in a materialistic society and
> exposed to often unrealistic education and experiences and the Overall
> View that comes from the Revelations of God.
> My own belief is that if God's Manifestation has revealed to us all
> truth and given us the principle of the harmony of faith and reason
> and science and religion then there is no way He can reveal anything
> that is contrary to reason. The problem, as I see it, is that our
> knowing powers of physical senses, intellect and our power of faith
> must all be directed to and focused on the realization of the
> principle of unity in order for us to have the full and most efficient
> use of these powers which in turn will produce sciences and religions
> that are in harmony.
>
However, does this mean the literalism-reductionism part _is_ true,
that
yes, _no_ speech _is_ preferable to silence and so the mouth is an
evil
to be condemned at every turn? Because you just said up there "what
"appears" to be contradictions are due to our limited capacity and
as
we become more deepened we see how these are unified" which suggests
there _aren't_ any and so the _literal_ interpretation is _right_ and
we
just don't see it as so because it goes against "our view". (But isn't
literalism-
reductionism part of "our view"?!) (Note that there is a difference
between "no
contradictions between the *true* meanings", and "no contradictions
between
*literal* and *non-literal* meanings or two *literal* meanings",
because the
literalist-reductionist meanings may not be the true meanings.)
t h
It is obvious that some speech is always preferable to silence.
Your house is on fire!!! If true then silence would not be preferable.
Sometimes silence is to be preferred. "Have you stopped beating your
children yet? You won't believe what I just heard about Joe and Mary!!!
Most innuendo and gossip is better left unsaid."
Then there are the gray areas. "The man who moved in next door to your
day care center is a level 3 sex offender. The guy you are dating has 3
convictions
for rape. The guy you met was charged with rape but the witness backed
out and
there was no trial. I have heard that those people are involved in drug
selling."
Some things should be shouted to everyone now. Somethings should never be
said. Some things should be said privately to the appropriate authorities.
Some things should be said only to those who need to hear them.
So the statements about silence need to be applied thoughtfully and
reasonably.
Or perhaps they are an object for meditation so that we can come to a
better
understanding of the role of speech.
Only rarely will literalism be an appropriate way to look at mystical
writings.
Other things are clearly intended as laws, principles, or regulations.
That is
where literalism is correct in understanding the meaning. Even there as
Baha'is we defer to the Universal House of Justice to legislate what we
should do about some of them.
Tom
Douglas McAdam
Once again I am at a loss to know how best to explain or clarify all
this for you. For me there are no contradictions, no literalist/
reductionist type statements in the Writings, it is we who misperceive
these things by imposing such terms upon the Writings which have come
from some sort of intellectualizing debate type forum.
What "appears" to you or anyone as a "literalist/reductionist" type of
meaning is the result of your own conditioned Persona Views, something
the Writings seek to remedy. The only way to remedy this is to accept
the Manifestation and abide by His commands (obey the Covenant) and in
time we will see how faulty our perceptions are. But if we try to
impose the "standards amongst men" to the Holy Scriptures we are going
to have a problem in understanding. I think it is fine to discuss and
consult about these things but when labels like "literalist/
reductionist" are put out it cause disunity from an attack and defend
type of argument which is what we do not need.
There are different levels of knowing and loving, and what might
appear as one thing on one level is not so on another. Our physical
senses are faulty and cannot inform us of the total reality of
things. Our human intellect is also faulty because it depends on the
senses and discovery and experience. Our higher nature's power of
faith is also faulty because is can inform us of an untruth as well as
a truth. We need unity in all things. So we must find a way to unify
our higher, human and lower natures and the Writings give us that
way. First we must accept the Manifestation and all He reveals and
strive to obey His commands. We must have Knowledge, Volition and
Action, not just another new set of beliefs. We need conscious
knowledge by testing our beliefs with action, obedience.
To have unity there needs be one animating principle around and by
which all things revolve and are organized. We have that knowledge in
the Revelation of Baha'u'llah but first we must be willing to admit we
need help.
regards,
doug
mike3
> Dear Mike-
> Once again I am at a loss to know how best to explain or clarify all
> this for you. For me there are no contradictions, no literalist/
> reductionist type statements in the Writings, it is we who misperceive
> these things by imposing such terms upon the Writings which have come
> from some sort of intellectualizing debate type forum.
What I was referring to was "contradictions" created _by_ taking this
"literalist" meaning as right, e.g. if one were to interpret that
"observe
silence" statement as meaning literally that no speech at all is good,
then one comes up with contradictions. But all that serves to do is
tell that the "literalist meaning" was not the true one. What I'm
saying
is that the "literal" interpretation need not be the right one. Do you
agree with that?
> What "appears" to you or anyone as a "literalist/reductionist" type of
> meaning is the result of your own conditioned Persona Views, something
> the Writings seek to remedy.
So does that mean you agree then, that a contradiction between
"literalist"
meanings may exist, and the "literalist" meaning may be false/wrong?
But
that none of these things actually matter to it: as it is a
"distortion" of the
"truth" by those personal biases, not the actual truth. And so it is
perfectly
OK to go looking for the _real_ "truth" in places beyond the
"literalist/
reductionist" meaning -- i.e to *break free* from that box. I.e. the
idea that
"observe silence" means no talking ever at any point for any purpose
("literalist"
meaning) is patently absurd, so then we need to look at it differently
to
obtain the right answer. And there's nothing wrong with this,
precisely because
that literalist meaning need not be the right one (you yourself said
it was a
result of personal bias!).
That is what I'm trying to say here.
<snip>
t h
Cheers,
Tom
Douglas McAdam
I agree that the literal meaning may not be right and again it may be
right for we are not infallible interpreters of the Word of God, are we?
Thank God He gave us the principle of consultation so we can promote
and maintain unity amongst ourselves for the meanings of the Word of
God are many.
regards,
doug
mike3
wrote:
> Hi Mike-
> I agree that the literal meaning may not be right and again it may be
> right for we are not infallible interpreters of the Word of God, are we?
> Thank God He gave us the principle of consultation so we can promote
> and maintain unity amongst ourselves for the meanings of the Word of
> God are many.
>
But it would seem absurd that one could _never_ use speech _at all_,
which
is why I'd find it difficult to admit such a literal meaning.
Douglas McAdam
logical meaning to us. There are times when speech should be absent
entirely and in all other cases it should be moderated by the
Teachings? When talking to
God we don't really need words and also no words of praise or ours can
in any way be descriptive of God.
regards,
doug
mike3
wrote:
> Well Mike, I would never be absolute about what might appear to be a
> logical meaning to us.
Exactly what do you interpret as "being absolute about it"?
> There are times when speech should be absent
> entirely and in all other cases it should be moderated by the
> Teachings?
But taken *face-up literally in isolation*, it would seem to say that
under *every*
circumstance, the speech should be absent entirely. I.e. the *only*
permissible
level of speech is zero, *everywhere* and at *every time*. But you
can't run a society
at all without speaking a word or otherwise communicating information.
This
suggests that the super-strict literal+in-isolation+reductionism
interpretation is
stupendously unlikely to be the right one.
Douglas McAdam
things literally in an absolute way and nothing I say will make any
difference.
What I have found in my 41 years as a Baha'is that whenever we run
into what appears to be contradictions in the Writings or things that
somehow do not seem logical or fitting our reasoning it means we are
just not deep enough into the Writings. We have to take things in
context, the sentence in context of the paragraph, in context with the
subject, and the context of other quotes related to the subject, the
historical, cultural and larger contexts. That requires a lot of
study. After a while I began to realize the problem was me, not the
Writings.
Giving an example like you did about running a society is taking the
whole issue way out of context and the overall reality of the
Revelation as I see it. How about all the quotes regarding how are
speech should be?
regards,
doug
mike3
wrote:
> Well Mike, I do not know what to say because you seem bent on taking
> things literally in an absolute way and nothing I say will make any
> difference.
No, I was saying that literalism leads to absurdity, so I'm actually
*criticizing*
it, *not* accepting it. So then it _will_ make a difference what you
say, because
I'm not "bent" on that, I'm "bent" on more of the opposite.
> What I have found in my 41 years as a Baha'is that whenever we run
> into what appears to be contradictions in the Writings or things that
> somehow do not seem logical or fitting our reasoning it means we are
> just not deep enough into the Writings. We have to take things in
> context, the sentence in context of the paragraph, in context with the
> subject, and the context of other quotes related to the subject, the
> historical, cultural and larger contexts. That requires a lot of
> study. After a while I began to realize the problem was me, not the
> Writings.
Which is not the same as strict literalism and "isolationism". Hence I
fail to see the disagreement: I'm saying that we can fairly safely
dismiss
the literal out-of-context ("isolationism") interpretation when our
logic
suggests it is quite absurd, and look for something else and need not
revisit it without overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
> Giving an example like you did about running a society is taking the
> whole issue way out of context and the overall reality of the
> Revelation as I see it. How about all the quotes regarding how are
> speech should be?
>
The point was to show the absurdity of a literalist/isolationist
interpretation.
The way you were saying it, like "I would never be absolute about what
might appear to be a logical meaning to us" and "I agree that the
literal
meaning may not be right and again it may be right for we are not
infallible
interpreters of the Word of God, are we?" made it sound like that
such a thing should not be done, and we should instead focus more on
such literal interpretations and not be so hasty to dismiss them and
not
resurrect them without overwhelming evidence despite *every*
indication
suggesting they are absurd and ridiculous. This was the source of the
"disagreement".
It is important to note I was not saying any of our interpretations,
literal or
otherwise, was "infallible", just that if everything points to it
being wrong
then without at least equally overwhelming evidence that it is right,
why go
and stick hard and fast to it? And in this case, I so far fail to see
the
evidence that such a literal interpretation is warranted. Of course if
such
evidence _did_ come up then we'd have to take it into account and
perhaps
resurrect the literal interpretation, but that has not happened.
Surely, if we take the statement about speech without such literalism
(i.e.
that its advice to "observe silence" does not apply to *every*
circumstance
and *every* possible form of speech, so there *are* times when speech
of
*some* sort is appropriate, even though this is not mentioned in that
particular quote itself) and in the context of additional material
(where it
*is* mentioned), then there is no more problem.
Douglas McAdam
Baha'u'llah, an Infallible Manifestation of God, has given us the
principle of the harmony of faith and reason, science and religion,
then nothing He reveals can be in disharmony with this. It is we,
because of our infant spiritual development, who cannot as yet see
the wisdom in these things.
I would not take the quote you mentioned literally in general but I
might when it relates to the process of determining the truth of the
Manifestation of God. In other words if we are true seekers we will
not allow anything to interfere with our search for truth.
regards,
doug
mike3
wrote:
> Well that is a little different my friend. But the point is that if
> Baha'u'llah, an Infallible Manifestation of God, has given us the
> principle of the harmony of faith and reason, science and religion,
> then nothing He reveals can be in disharmony with this.
The statements that I mentioned were not about "science" though.
> It is we,
> because of our infant spiritual development, who cannot as yet see
> the wisdom in these things.
But can one even grow beyond an "infancy" of spiritual development?
Plus, how do you know I don't see the "wisdom" of, say, a harmonized
science and religion?
> I would not take the quote you mentioned literally in general but I
> might when it relates to the process of determining the truth of the
> Manifestation of God. In other words if we are true seekers we will
> not allow anything to interfere with our search for truth.
>
I was asking more about _how_ to know what to take literally and
just how literally something can be taken. As I pointed out, taking
that
particular quote to such an extremely literal level yields absurdities
and
contradictions, suggesting that said extreme literal interpretation is
quite
off the mark.
Douglas McAdam
On Apr 2, 2009, at 2:43 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Mar 26, 5:45 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Well that is a little different my friend. But the point is that if
>
>> Baha'u'llah, an Infallible Manifestation of God, has given us the
>> principle of the harmony of faith and reason, science and religion,
>> then nothing He reveals can be in disharmony with this.
>
> The statements that I mentioned were not about "science" though.
The point is Mike that Baha'u'llah would not reveal anything that does
not fit "reason" and science is the result of the application of
"reason". Therefor the quote you mention somehow has to fit reason
even though we may not see it at the moment.
>
>
>> It is we,
>> because of our infant spiritual development, who cannot as yet see
>> the wisdom in these things.
>
> But can one even grow beyond an "infancy" of spiritual development?
>
> Plus, how do you know I don't see the "wisdom" of, say, a harmonized
> science and religion?
Yes, one can and will grow beyond infant spirituality if one desires
to do so and will follow those twin duties imposed on mankind, i.e. to
accept the Manifestation and obey His commands. As to whether you
know the wisdom or not I think you admitted that you do not see the
wisdom of the quote in question which is why we are discussing it. I
have no trouble reconciling this quote with any understanding I have,
in spite of knowing that my understanding might be faulty. And that
is because I have had experiences of not understanding things at one
time and later, after learning more in general I then did understand.
That is what I am saying to you is that maybe you just need to accept
the quote as true and be patient for the understanding to come.
>
>
>> I would not take the quote you mentioned literally in general but I
>> might when it relates to the process of determining the truth of the
>> Manifestation of God. In other words if we are true seekers we will
>
>> not allow anything to interfere with our search for truth.
>>
>
> I was asking more about _how_ to know what to take literally and
> just how literally something can be taken. As I pointed out, taking
> that
> particular quote to such an extremely literal level yields absurdities
> and
> contradictions, suggesting that said extreme literal interpretation is
> quite
> off the mark.
Mike we can take almost all things to an absurd or extreme example if
we wish to.
Like I said we might take that literally for the instant we need in
order to find and accept the Truth but that does not mean we take it
literally universally at all times.
To me, the problem is that we have been conditioned to think in terms
of right/wrong, good/evil, pro/con, either/or and debate issues, even
to the point of taking things to absurd levels or example and in some
cases even making personal attacks to win an argument. The Baha'i
Writings offer us an Overall View that goes beyond these conditions,
where we see an end in each beginning, a beginning in each end, a
solution to each problem and in each solution a problem. I simply
don't restrict my thinking to these culturally conditioned limitations
of our present and faulty education. I try to remain open as possible.
The quote is about seeking truth and we need to view it in that
context, I think.
regards,
doug
mike3
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 2:43 PM, mike3 wrote:
> > The statements that I mentioned were not about "science" though.
>
> The point is Mike that Baha'u'llah would not reveal anything that does
> not fit "reason" and science is the result of the application of
> "reason". Therefor the quote you mention somehow has to fit reason
> even though we may not see it at the moment.
>
But it doesn't seem "unreasonable" if the interpretation one uses is
not
strictly literal. So how come we don't "see" the "reason" in it?
<snip>
> > But can one even grow beyond an "infancy" of spiritual development?
>
> > Plus, how do you know I don't see the "wisdom" of, say, a harmonized
> > science and religion?
>
> Yes, one can and will grow beyond infant spirituality if one desires
> to do so and will follow those twin duties imposed on mankind, i.e. to
> accept the Manifestation and obey His commands. As to whether you
> know the wisdom or not I think you admitted that you do not see the
> wisdom of the quote in question which is why we are discussing it.
I didn't say there wasn't any wisdom, I said that a *face up literal
interpretation*
(i.e. no speech *ever at any time*) seems absurd. That does not mean
that
I have not considered other possibilities that seem more in accord
with
reason.
> I
> have no trouble reconciling this quote with any understanding I have,
> in spite of knowing that my understanding might be faulty. And that
> is because I have had experiences of not understanding things at one
> time and later, after learning more in general I then did understand.
> That is what I am saying to you is that maybe you just need to accept
> the quote as true and be patient for the understanding to come.
>
The problem is not whether or not it is "true". The problem is, is it
bad
to not take it strictly literally and isolated?
>
>
<snip>
> > I was asking more about _how_ to know what to take literally and
> > just how literally something can be taken. As I pointed out, taking
> > that
> > particular quote to such an extremely literal level yields absurdities
> > and
> > contradictions, suggesting that said extreme literal interpretation is
> > quite
> > off the mark.
>
> Mike we can take almost all things to an absurd or extreme example if
> we wish to.
>
However, the point of taking it to this level is to demonstrate how
crazy
it is -- that it, it is a _critique_, not an _agreement with_, such
extreme
black/white thinking.
> Like I said we might take that literally for the instant we need in
> order to find and accept the Truth but that does not mean we take it
> literally universally at all times.
>
> To me, the problem is that we have been conditioned to think in terms
> of right/wrong, good/evil, pro/con, either/or and debate issues, even
> to the point of taking things to absurd levels or example and in some
> cases even making personal attacks to win an argument. The Baha'i
> Writings offer us an Overall View that goes beyond these conditions,
> where we see an end in each beginning, a beginning in each end, a
> solution to each problem and in each solution a problem. I simply
> don't restrict my thinking to these culturally conditioned limitations
> of our present and faulty education. I try to remain open as possible.
>
And that's why I dismiss that extreme interpretation -- because it is
just that: extreme & black/white, and it does not seem to agree with
reason.
I'm just wanting to know if there is a problem with doing that.
There's also one more question: you say you try to remain as "open as
possible". But you can't be so open you believe everything and
anything.
So what do you do?
> The quote is about seeking truth and we need to view it in that
> context, I think.
>
> regards,
> doug
>
<snip>