New Year, Baha'i Commonwealth & Evolution
Chuck Lasky
Since the Bab established the Baha'i calendar, and Baha'u'llah
accepted it with the new year to coincide with the Spring Equinox, it
should be noted that this is when the rays of the sun strike the
equator. This marks the equal hours of daylight and night time in both
hemispheres. The fact that spring begins in the northern hemisphere and
autumn in the southern hemisphere are basically irrelevant - at least to
my understanding. What matters is that the sun's rays strike the equator
at the equinox and the hours of light and darkness are equal. As was
also previously noted, the Persian/Iranian new year has been observed as
coinciding with the Spring Equinox for many of centuries. Aside from
this, and most importantly, the new year was set by the Bab, sanctioned
by Baha'u'llah, as previously noted. Indeed, the establishment of a
calendar is one of the proofs of the Manifestations of God, and none of
the previous Manifestations established one so perfect.
Re: Rights in a Baha'i Commonwealth:
The writings of Shoghi Effendi, Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, and
interpretor of the Writings after 'Abdu'l-Baha, gave us glimpses as to
what this commonwealth would be like, but he himself said we were too
close to the present and that THE FUTURE ALONE WOULD REVEAL ITS
IMPORT. If, the Guardian could not see nor say what it would be like,
who are we to say what the commonwealth will be like. The only thing
we can be certain of is that, as Baha'u'llah promised, the entire
world would come to accept Him as the Promised One of All Ages Who
will establish Christ's promised Kingdom of God on earth. As Bill
Collins said, "How they are applied will have to be seen over time, and
with the guidance of the Universal House of Justice." It's nice to
speculate, but we must keep in mind, that whatever we conceive is the
product of our own imaginations and not the product of God's creative
will. We have to learn to discern the difference between the two and
God is immeasureably exalted above our understanding. As the Bab said,
"Far from the glory of God, the Lord of heaven and earth, the Lord of
creation, be that which is affirmed of Him by the peoples of the world..."
Re: Science of Reality:
It's been many years since I took biology in junior college, but
I do remember that there were three photos of different embryos - human,
bird, and some other animal. What the photo showed was that all three
embryos had gill slits at this time in their development. In light of
the Baha'i Teachings of evolution and the existence of man, these
embryos indicate that quite possibly, all of these life forms existed
in a water environment. Each one of them, however, was and is still a
distinct species destined to become a human, bird or whatever else. If
the arguments of common ancestral descendent are used, then the common
ancestral sire of man and ape is a fish of some kind.
The Baha'i Writings do not deny that evolution exists, they merely
state that each species evolves to its highest and most perfect physical
form, that each species is distinct from each other. The hunt for the
"missing link" can thus be seen as being a futile attempt to uncover what
is simply "missing" because it does not exist. Whether mankind has had
this form or not through his development to his current state he has
always been mankind, singular and distinct, as the three embryos are each
distinct. It is genetically impossible for one species to give rise to
another, even considering mutation. Whether species, including man,
continue to evolve in form (physical appearance) is something the future
will reveal. The past, however, is easier to see. These are the
"fossils." Each embryo, from conception on, passes through these
"fossil" changes.
-Chuck Lasky, Cur...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu
Remember: the book is entitled "Some Answered Questions," not "Some
Answers Questioned"
Brian Schellenberger
Heavens, this sounds far from any scientific point of view I've heard.
And the Baha'i Faith makes the claim quite specifically to accept science.
[As a side point, `Abdul-Baha' is promised to be the perfect examplar
of how to act, and infallible in interpreting the writings of Baha'u'llah;
I'm not certain that His every word on every subject is infallible: can
anybody provide the specfic references to the contrary?]
At this point, it was my intention to argue that Abdu'l-Baha was merely
arguing for the eternal origin of the soul, an argument I'd like to
believe put forth by other Baha'is. That is, for directed evolution,
where man has always existed, but did not actually show up in physical
form on this earth until animal evolution had reached a certain stage,
and when a creature was close enough to have the perfections of mankind
descend from the spiritual realm and into the physical. However, I
can find no way to twist around the words of `Abdu'l-Baha to this
degree; in fact, the argument that I was responding to is a perfect
synopsis of the 49th chapter of Some Answered Questions.
On the other, I _cannot_ and _will_ not accept this point of view.
I simply can't believe that God wants to plant evidences and a fossil
record merely to test our Faith. Tests of Faith in the laws He gives
(such as the Women on the Universal House of Justice thread) I can
accept, but tests in reality? And in a Faith than claims harmony
with science as a fundamental tenant?
I have a great deal of trouble with this.
So, I guess I would find it most helpful to actually turn the
discussion to the question I original had as an "aside": would
it be Baha'i heresy for me to agree with the original poster
(Ron House?) that `Abdu'l-Baha was simply wrong on this point?
All I can find in my quick perusal of my writings is that he
is appointed Center of the Covenant--that is, all must obey
Him, examplar of the best Baha'i bahavior, and interpreter of
the Writings of Baha'u'llah. But this question does _not_
involve either Baha'i Law (obedience), behavior (examplar), or
the writings of Baha'u'llah.
Can I simply believe Abdu'l-Baha to be wrong on this one point
and still remain a Baha'i? Or should I, in good conscience,
assuming I continue to feel this way (and I don't see how to
let myself off the hook on the above points), resign from the
Faith?
--
----------------------------
Brian, the Man from Babble-on. \ Brian T. Schellenberger /
\ babb...@vnet.net /
"To be sure, there are many people who ------------------------
cannot spell and who therefore equate
censureship with censorship." -- Miss Manners
Brian Schellenberger
| Re: the Baha'i New Year:
| Since the Bab established the Baha'i calendar, and Baha'u'llah
| accepted it with the new year to coincide with the Spring Equinox, it
| should be noted that this is when the rays of the sun strike the
| equator. This marks the equal hours of daylight and night time in both
| hemispheres. The fact that spring begins in the northern hemisphere and
| autumn in the southern hemisphere are basically irrelevant - at least to
| my understanding. What matters is that the sun's rays strike the equator
| at the equinox and the hours of light and darkness are equal.
But the fall equinox has the same property. Why the Vernal?
(I would suggest that it's because the Northern Hemisphere has the
majority of both land and people, but this is strictly personal;
I don't think Baha'u'llah has answered this question. The suggestion
that it reflects spring at the Qiblah [the "Point of Adoration", the point
to which a worshipper turns when offering obligatory prayer; in the
Baha'i Faith this is the resting-place of Baha'u'llah -mod] makes
sense, too.)
John Haukness
answered questions, many consider to be a secondary text and not
perfectly sacred, such, as say, Tablets of the Divine Plan. So this is a
good question. But two other points you have raised, evolution proof, and
reason to consider affiliation in the Faith, I would like to comment on.
I have been following the evolution discussion for some time now and one
thing that amazes me is the notion of all of these so called facts. I am
a humanities major but have paid cursory attention to
anthropology/biology/archaeology and am aware of many discrepancies,
academic rows, bitter disputes and charges of false diggings, false
photo's, unsubstantiated claims. So apart from Abdu'l-Baha, I fail to see
how one gets so determined that there is one view of evolution.
Scientists are not in agreement on these things, unless Desmond Morris,
the Naked Ape is now considered factual, it probably is and if so this is
a sad state. Where can I turn for fiction then. Even carbon dating is not
an exact science, anyway if one wants to belief they have the truth
concerning thousand year old bones, whatever makes you happy. As far as
leaving or staying, Well I hope you stay, but it's a personal decision.
But, I would not worry so much over a secondary text, as I would over
Abdul Baha's major works, personally (only) I think if you can't accept a
secondary text, no big deal, it's ok. I am not speaking from experience
however, I have yet to take issue with statements of the Hands, or
secondary texts, but then I don't see evolution as factual, rather,
as assumptual. Sorry to go so long. john
hauk...@tenet.ed> mail 2015 Bay St. Texas City, TX 77590.
409-948-6074
One planet one people please.
>
> Heavens, this sounds far from any scientific point of view I've heard.
> And the Baha'i Faith makes the claim quite specifically to accept science.
>
> That is, for directed evolution,
> where man has always existed, but did not actually show up in physical
> form on this earth until animal evolution had reached a certain stage,
> and when a creature was close enough to have the perfections of mankind
> descend from the spiritual realm and into the physical. However, I
> can find no way to twist around the words of `Abdu'l-Baha to this
> degree; in fact, the argument that I was responding to is a perfect
> synopsis of the 49th chapter of Some Answered Questions.
>
>
>
> So, I guess I would find it most helpful to actually turn the
> discussion to the question I original had as an "aside": would
> it be Baha'i heresy for me to agree with the original poster
> (Ron House?) that `Abdu'l-Baha was simply wrong on this point?
> All I can find in my quick perusal of my writings is that he
> is appointed Center of the Covenant--that is, all must obey
> Him, examplar of the best Baha'i bahavior, and interpreter of
> the Writings of Baha'u'llah. But this question does _not_
> involve either Baha'i Law (obedience), behavior (examplar), or
> the writings of Baha'u'llah.
>
> Can I simply believe Abdu'l-Baha to be wrong on this one point
> and still remain a Baha'i? Or should I, in good conscience,
> assuming I continue to feel this way (and I don't see how to
> let myself off the hook on the above points), resign from the
> Faith?
>
>
Gandhimohan Viswanathan (or just Gandhi)
: So, I guess I would find it most helpful to actually turn the
: discussion to the question I original had as an "aside": would
: it be Baha'i heresy for me to agree with the original poster
: (Ron House?) that `Abdu'l-Baha was simply wrong on this point?
I think that the Baha'i community would not react very well to the claim
that `Abdul'-Baha was "simply wrong". `Abdu'l-Baha is considered
infallible, according to Baha'i doctrine. I recommend that you try
other ways of solving your dilemma. See below.
: Can I simply believe Abdu'l-Baha to be wrong on this one point
: and still remain a Baha'i? Or should I, in good conscience,
: assuming I continue to feel this way (and I don't see how to
: let myself off the hook on the above points), resign from the
: Faith?
: ----------------------------
: Brian, the Man from Babble-on. \ Brian T. Schellenberger /
In the Baha'i Faith, there are no priests, no clergy, no living
authorized interpreters of the Word of God. `Abdul'-Baha and the
Guardian are no longer alive. Even the Universal House of Justive does
not have the prerogative of _authoritative_interpretation_ of Baha'i
scripture. Therefore Baha'is have almost complete freedom of
interpretation so long as they do not impose their views on other
Baha'is.
I, for example, firmly believe that humans share a common genetic
ancestor with all other primates. I also think that all of biology has
a common origin. There is absolutely no contradiction between this view
and the Baha'i writings, IN MY INTERPRETATION OF THE WRITINGS. (As a
Baha'i and as a scientist, I cannot ignore scientific evidence. )
Many Baha'is strongly disagree with me. But then, many Baha'is also agree
with my views on evolution. This diversity of thought and understanding
is not only allowed, but it is actually encouraged. After all, we must
not merely "imitate" other people. We must search for truth
independently. Diversity of understanding is a natural consequence of
independent search for truth. (See valley of unity in SVFV.) No two
Baha'is can be expected to have exactly the same understanding of
everything.
You have very accurately observed that there is a large discrepancy
between what `Abdu'l-Baha appears to have written and what science tells
us. The inconsistency may be traced to at least three sources:
1) `Abdu'l-Baha was "simply wrong".
2) Science is wrong.
3) Our interpretations are wrong.
I feel that (1) and (2) are out of the question. So (3) is the
problem, I think. But each person must come up with his or her own
answer to such questions. Many Baha'is choose (2). Ron, for example,
originally chose (1).
BTW I hope you don't leave the Baha'i community. You seem to have a
good conscience, and a good mind. It would be a loss.
Best wishes,
humble and lowly
Gandhi
A.D. Scott
While I feel absolutely unqualified to comment on the question you have
addressed to the electronic community, I feel compelled to offer something,
however inadequate, to attempt to answer your need.
I have made a number of postings in recent weeks addressing specifically
this topic; if you would like copies of the articles, please e-mail me and I
will forward them to you. (I will, however, be away for the next week.)
To summarise, the essence of this post is that the
concept of parallel evolution of humanity or even of a creationist worldview
stems from a mis-understanding of the translated word of 'Abdu'l-Baha ie the
very passages you refer to. Indeed, the interpretation to which you object
has nothing to do with the Baha'i Faith. I suggest 'Abdu'l-Baha was probably
referring to something akin to the Manifestations (ie messengers) of God.
Both the clear text and the contextual meaning of these passages clearly
indicate that 'Abdu'l-Baha was _not_ referring to the physical evolution of
humanity, or to humanity as a collection of individuals. The meaning of the
words of 'Abdu'l-Baha and modern science are demonstrated not to be in
conflict on this point (or, IMHO, on any other). Therefore the question of
challenging the authority of 'Abdu'l-Baha and the Covenant of Baha'u'llah
does not arise.
Brian Schellenberger (babb...@char.vnet.net) wrote:
: Heavens, this sounds far from any scientific point of view I've heard.
: And the Baha'i Faith makes the claim quite specifically to accept science.
: [As a side point, `Abdul-Baha' is promised to be the perfect examplar
: of how to act, and infallible in interpreting the writings of Baha'u'llah;
: I'm not certain that His every word on every subject is infallible: can
: anybody provide the specfic references to the contrary?]
The following is a data point in favour of the interpretation you have
cited, taken from an earlier posting of mine:
---begin:
If we understand the station of 'Abdu'l-Baha to be the "divinely inspired
authoritative interpreter of His [Baha'u'llah's] Teachings" (KA p3) then it
would appear that we expect what He says to be the truth, although our
understanding may be defective. This is clear from the text of the Most Holy
Book:
"When the Mystic Dove [Baha'u'llah] will have winged its flight from its
Santuary of Praise and sought its far off goal, its hidden habitation,
refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him Who hath branched
from this mighty Stock" KA p82 para #174
Note #145 (KA p227) makes it clear that Baha'u'llah was referring to
bdu'l-Baha in this passage. Since 'Abdu'l-Baha is understood by Baha'is to
be the centre and object of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah, then it would
appear that contesting the accuracy of 'Abdu'l-Baha is equivalent to contesting the
Covenant.
...
>From note #130 (KA p221):
"The existence of authoritative interpretations does not preclude the
individual from engaging in the study of the Teachings and thereby arriving
at a personal interpretation of understanding. A clear distinction is,
however, drawn in the Baha'i writings between authoritative interpretation
and the understanding that each individual arrives at from a study of its
Teachings. Individual interpretations based on a person's understanding of
the Teachings constitute the fruit of man's rational power and may well
contribute to a greater comprehension of the Faith. Such views,
nevertheless, lack authority. In presenting their personal ideas,
individuals are cautioned not to discard the authority of the revealed
words, nor to deny or contend with the authoritative interpretation, and not
to engage in controversy; rather they should offer their thoughts as a
contribution to knowledge, making it clear that their views are merely their
own"
---end:
NB: KA = Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Most Holy Book
: At this point, it was my intention to argue that Abdu'l-Baha was merely
: arguing for the eternal origin of the soul, an argument I'd like to
: believe put forth by other Baha'is [*]. That is, for directed evolution,
: where man has always existed, but did not actually show up in physical
: form on this earth until animal evolution had reached a certain stage,
: and when a creature was close enough to have the perfections of mankind
: descend from the spiritual realm and into the physical. However, I
: can find no way to twist around the words of `Abdu'l-Baha to this
: degree; in fact, the argument that I was responding to is a perfect
: synopsis of the 49th chapter of Some Answered Questions.
[*] My understanding of the Writings is that while the human soul is
eternal, it is not pre-existent. That is to say, its span of existence has a
definite beginning, but no end. I believe that 'Abdu'l-Baha was not
referring to the human soul in these passages, however, but something that
transends it.
: On the other, I _cannot_ and _will_ not accept this point of view.
: I simply can't believe that God wants to plant evidences and a fossil
: record merely to test our Faith. Tests of Faith in the laws He gives
: (such as the Women on the Universal House of Justice thread) I can
: accept, but tests in reality? And in a Faith than claims harmony
: with science as a fundamental tenant?
The suggestion that the fossil record has been falsified by God is nothing
short of laughable, and again has nothing to do with the Baha'i Faith.
Please refer to talk.origins for a regular in-depth debunking of the
Creationist myth.
: I have a great deal of trouble with this.
: So, I guess I would find it most helpful to actually turn the
: discussion to the question I original had as an "aside": would
: it be Baha'i heresy for me to agree with the original poster
: (Ron House?) that `Abdu'l-Baha was simply wrong on this point?
: All I can find in my quick perusal of my writings is that he
: is appointed Center of the Covenant--that is, all must obey
: Him, examplar of the best Baha'i bahavior, and interpreter of
: the Writings of Baha'u'llah. But this question does _not_
: involve either Baha'i Law (obedience), behavior (examplar), or
: the writings of Baha'u'llah.
: Can I simply believe Abdu'l-Baha to be wrong on this one point
: and still remain a Baha'i? Or should I, in good conscience,
: assuming I continue to feel this way (and I don't see how to
: let myself off the hook on the above points), resign from the
: Faith?
Put simply, I dont believe it is neccessary to even consider taking this
course of action. Why ? Because the clear intent of the passages in "Some
Answered Questions" you refer to differ from their commonly (mis-) understood
meaning.
There are two main reasons why I believe this: one, the contextual meaning
of 'man' and 'species' in these passages is different from the modern
English definition; two, in at least two places in that section of "Some
Answered Questions" 'Abdu'l-Baha states clearly that He does not refer to
the physical evolution of humanity as a whole.
Addressing the first point, 'Abdu'l-Baha states that the 'species and
essence' of 'man' undergo no change; yet He in the same passages explains
how the physical form of humanity has changed over time. Briefly, if the
form has changed, so must the genetic code to construct that form, and hence
by every commonly accepted definition, the species must have changed too. In
other words, the human species is not _physically_ original. This is
evidence that the word 'species' as used by 'Abdu'l-Baha is different from
the modern meaning. The word is also used interchangably with 'essence';
suggesting some non-material thing is being referred to. It must also be
understood that the translation of "Some Answered Questions" is strictly
unauthorised; while 'Abdu'l-Baha corrected the Persian version, the author
Miss Barney was entirely responsible for translating it into English.
Expanding on the second point, I simply quote the text of an earlier
posting:
---begin:
In "Some Answered Questions" p196, we can find the following:
'Therefore, it cannot be said there was a time when man was not ... This Man
of Whom we speak is not every man; we mean the Perfect Man.' (original
capitalizations)
And again, p178:
'When we speak of man, we mean the perfect one, the foremost individual in
the world, who is the sum of spiritual and apparent perfections, and who is
like the sun among the beings.'
It should be clear from the above passages that 'Abdu'l-Baha does not here
refer to differences each individual example of the human species has from
other living things, but to an individual or essence, seemingly related to the
spirit of the Manifestations of God. I have promised to post at greater
length on this topic, and in the next few days I shall find some time to do
this. However, I will comment briefly on some implications of the above
statement. In "The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys", a letter addressed
by Baha'u'llah to a Sufi, reference to 'the four worlds of God' is made;
each of these is characterised by different strictures of time. One has a
fixed beginning and end, another has a fixed beginning and no end, the third
is like the second reversed, and the last has no beginning or end. There are
references to how the human soul and the substance of the Manifestations fit
into this scheme in the Writings; I will elaborate further soon. However my
understanding at this present moment is that the human soul belongs to the
second world ie it is immortal; the souls of the Manifestations, however,
are preexistent and eternal - they belong in the fourth world. This being
the case, if 'Abdu'l-Baha was indeed referring to the human soul in "Some
Answered Questions" then it is clear that 'man' could not have always
existed. I suggest 'Abdu'l-Baha refers to something akin to the souls of the
Manifestations. What that is I dont know yet.
---end:
Unfortunately it will now be a couple of weeks before I will be able to make
the posting I refer to.
'Abdu'l-Baha also makes it clear that there was a time when humanity was
not, and a time when the Earth did not exist. It should be clear that the
existence of the rest of the universe in no way depends on the fate of this
tiny speck of dust. But 'Abdu'l-Baha states clearly that a creation without
'man' would not be 'perfect', and that an 'imperfect' creation could not be
imagined, so 'man' must have always existed. This being the case,
'Abdu'l-Baha was very simply not referring to humanity when he spoke of
'man'. I have enclosed some words in quotes here, because I am not clear
what they actually mean.
God willing, the comments I have addressed to your concerns will in some
measure be sufficient to satisfy your curiosity and relieve you of anxiety.
IMHO, the flow of questions and the 'heat' of enquiry relating to this
vexing question are now getting to such a state that I feel it is time to
submit a suitably condensed question on this topic to the Universal House of
Justice for their consideration. Hopefully then we could sort out some kind
of 'evolution FAQ', and maybe unburden this writer from the awful strain of
attempting what must surely be beyond his capabilities :-).
: --
: ----------------------------
: Brian, the Man from Babble-on. \ Brian T. Schellenberger /
: \ babb...@vnet.net /
: "To be sure, there are many people who ------------------------
: cannot spell and who therefore equate
: censureship with censorship." -- Miss Manners
As always, the content of this posting reflects the personal understanding
of this author only and in no way corresponds to any 'official' Baha'i
attitude.
Andy Scott
ph...@cc.keele.ac.uk
Matthew P Menge
>
> At this point, it was my intention to argue that Abdu'l-Baha was merely
> arguing for the eternal origin of the soul, an argument I'd like to
> believe put forth by other Baha'is.
I had reread chapter 49 of _Some Answered Questions_ and from it I
gather that Abdu'l Baha had argued that MAN is a distinct species. That is
to say, apes (or more accurately the hypothetical common ancestor of man
and apes) did not gradually develop a soul over a period of time. Thus man
has always existed with a complete soul (meaning the Spirit of faith, and
similar spiritual qualities exclusive to man, if there is a set Baha'i
definition for "soul" I apologize.) and never a partial soul. Thus it is
impossible for there to be "half man half ape monstrousities", etc.
As Abdu'l Baha had stated (presumably in summary) towards the end
of chapter 49, "-in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence
in the matrix of the world is a distinct species --and has gradually
evolved from one form to another-...Man from the beginning was in this
perfect form and composition, and possessed capacity and aptitude for
aquiring material and spiritual perfections..."
For readers who are not Baha'is, this "beginning" was millions of
years ago.
That is, Abdu'l Baha appears to be arguing that man, from the
beginning of his existence on earth, has always had a complete "soul" and
is distinct from animals which do not.
It is my understanding that Abdu'l Baha believed that this was
only possible in a creature that possessed certain forms of physical
perfection which animals do not possess.
"In the same way, when the elements are arranged and combined in
the most glorious system, organization and manner, the human spirit will
appear and be manifest in them. " (Abdu'l Baha, _Some Answered Questions_,
p.201, ch. 52)
HOWEVER, although I think this was the point of the chapter, I
think Abdu'l Baha gives some subtle and very indirect implications that
other animal "species" underwent a sudden change into a new "species".
If you are interested, there are some interesting discussions
going on in the science world about the "punctuated equillibrium" theory
of evolution proposed by Stephen Jay Gould & Niles Eldredge. (See
_Scientific American_, "Punctuated Equillibrium: Darwin survives as the
debate evolves, March 1990, p.36-38 or _Nature_ "Punctuated Equillibrium
Comes of Age", November 18, 1993, p.223ff) Punctuated equillibrium, a
theory (hypothesis) which, as far as I know, has nothing to do with
Creationism, suggests, roughly, that species evolve in distinct spurts
rather than gradual evolution. My own conception of evolution follows
these lines somewhat. Punctuated equillibrium, is furthermore, not an
underground or off-the-wall theory but, to my understanding, is looked
upon as being very credible by the scientific communtiy. I am actually not
all that well-versed in punctuated equillibrium, however.
My personal OPINION is that large evolutionary steps took place
due to the emegence of a single animal that was significantly more
advanced than its parents. However, this is only my opinion, and not
scientific fact.
Of course, I do not believe that Abdu'l Baha was implying a
literal interpretation of Genesis in any sense after all, in Genesis, we
see plants (third Day) appearing before the sun does (fourth Day). In
fact, I placed a long two-part post on a symbolic interpretion of Genesis
some time back.
Regards,
Matt Menge
My opinions only.
gold...@delphi.com
>At this point, it was my intention to argue that Abdu'l-Baha was merely
>arguing for the eternal origin of the soul, an argument I'd like to
>believe put forth by other Baha'is. That is, for directed evolution,
>where man has always existed, but did not actually show up in physical
>form on this earth until animal evolution had reached a certain stage,
>and when a creature was close enough to have the perfections of mankind
>descend from the spiritual realm and into the physical. However, I
creature having a rational soul. The physical manifestation of that
creature will vary depending on the course of physical evolution of
a particular planet. The purpose of the evolutionary process is to
produce man-- a creature having a rational soul. The details of that
process are not a matter of religion, but of science. The purpose of that
process is not a matter of science, but of religion. This is how we are
to understand the harmoney of science and religion. Each has its own
domain.
As for 'Abdul-Baha'is infallability, I do not think He has made the claim
Baha'u'llah's Writings. 'Abdu'l-Baha was not a Manifestation of God, and
therefore did not have innate knowledge, although He reflected the knowledge
of His Father. His Divine Philosophy on the origins of the human soul it
seems to me are interpretations of Baha'i Teachings, however.
ron house
>[As a side point, `Abdul-Baha' is promised to be the perfect examplar
>of how to act, and infallible in interpreting the writings of Baha'u'llah;
>I'm not certain that His every word on every subject is infallible: can
>anybody provide the specfic references to the contrary?]
In their letter to me the Universal House of Justice stated that there
was "every reason" to think that 'Abdu-l-Baha was infallible in all ways.
[As to my request for _any_ statement by Baha'u'llah saying so, they
provided nothing; but that's another story.]
>...
>So, I guess I would find it most helpful to actually turn the
>discussion to the question I original had as an "aside": would
>it be Baha'i heresy for me to agree with the original poster
>(Ron House?) that `Abdu'l-Baha was simply wrong on this point?
Apparently not!
>All I can find in my quick perusal of my writings is that he
>is appointed Center of the Covenant--that is, all must obey
>Him, examplar of the best Baha'i bahavior, and interpreter of
>the Writings of Baha'u'llah. But this question does _not_
>involve either Baha'i Law (obedience), behavior (examplar), or
>the writings of Baha'u'llah.
Excellent summary of the facts.
>Can I simply believe Abdu'l-Baha to be wrong on this one point
>and still remain a Baha'i? Or should I, in good conscience,
>assuming I continue to feel this way (and I don't see how to
>let myself off the hook on the above points), resign from the
>Faith?
As I have mentioned on a previous occasion, I have informed the UHJ
that I believe firmly that no one or institution that ever existed
is infallible, even Baha'u'llah, and I asked them if that was too
serious a divergence to remain a Baha'i. They didn't tell me it was.
--
Ron House. USQ
(ho...@usq.edu.au) Toowoomba, Australia.
rboatright on BIX
>one thing that amazes me is the notion of all of these so called facts. I am
>a humanities major but have paid cursory attention to
>anthropology/biology/archaeology and am aware of many discrepancies...
Well, the evolution problem from Some Answered questions has been a major
sticking point for me for two decades. I can not deny the reality of the
Baha'i Faith, and I can't accept the simplistic view of Some Answered
Questions. I am not prepared to contend that Laura Clifford Bareny was
innacurate, and I'm not prepared to accept a simplistic creationist stand
on this.
John, you're right that there are many discrepancies, and that academic
debate rages on the finer points, but there are several things about the
fossil record which are no longer subject to discussion.
Layers of similar fossils exist.
As you go to deeper layers existing species disappear from the layers, and
different species appear.
There are some layers where suddenly vast numbers of species disappear,
then, in the immidiately higher layers, species counts increase suddenly.
the father apart two layers are, the more different the species are.
now, things get trickier after that. If you look at the form of the fossils
you find, it appears that as early specied die out, similar, apparently
related ones take their place.
Looking at the fossil record, it appears that the form of species change.
And indeed, Abdu'l=Baha said that they do. Indeed, he said the form of
MAN changed over time, that at one time man had a tail and etc...
So, looking at the fossil record, and looking at Abdu'l-Baha, we have no
major problem except one thing. Abdu'l-Baha says that Man was never an
animal. That man evolved BESIDE the animals.
I too have looked for some way to read the investment of spirit into man
wwhen he was capable of the self-awareness which distinguished the human
kingdom from the animal, but I can't find it.
Yet, biochemically, man is identical with the animals. Man's DNA differs
in only a teeny tiny way from Chimp. Man's enzymes, his chromosomes, his
biochemistry are identical to the animals, as indeed, it needed to be or
we couldn't eat them. We share DNA sequences with every living thing
including those weird sulfer eating bacteria found around the deep sea
vents. To postulate that this does not imply common decent requires
twisting the mind into a very very weird shape.
Since I can not, by faith be other than a Baha'i, I've been forced to file
this one on my "To be settled when I meet Mulla Husain at the gates of the
Abha Kingdom" file.
--rick boatright
rboat...@bix.com
"If not us, Who? If not now, When?"
Jason Swanson
>Shoghi Effendi gave us glimpses as to
>what this commonwealth would be like, but he himself said we were too
>close to the present and that THE FUTURE ALONE WOULD REVEAL ITS
>IMPORT. If, the Guardian could not see
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I dunno, maybe he just didn't think it prudent to dwell on it now, but
I have a feeling he had lots more to share with us on every topic if it
had been God's will for him to stay with us indefinitely. :)
>who are we to say what the commonwealth will be like.
>It's nice to speculate,
Yes...
>but we must keep in mind, that whatever we conceive is the
>product of our own imaginations
and analytic capabilities.
>and not the product of God's creative
>will.
Nor is teaching or deepening, but they are productive! :)
>We have to learn to discern the difference between the two and
>God is immeasureably exalted above our understanding.
Sure. We can speculate, and analyze, and deepen our understandings,
and still realize we are error-prone. Pretty simple.
Jason
K. Paul Johnson
teaching about human evolution. I'm not submitting this as
something I believe in, but as an interesting point of view.
Blavatsky teaches that humanity "descended" from a spiritual
existence, incarnating into an existing apelike species 18
million years ago, and was then distinct from the other simians
thereafter. If there's anything to this, Abdu'l Baha could be
right about humanity's spiritual distinctness, and his
reference to being separate from animal life all the way back
could mean separate by virtue of existing on a spiritual plane
only. Now this spiritual plane stuff may be meaningless
scientifically, but if you think of it as unmanifested
potentiality it just means we were distinct by virtue of not
yet "existing." Far fetched, I know, but Abdu'l Baha was quite
familiar with Theosophy and may have been influenced by the
teaching on evolution.
S. Indiogine
I think issue of so-called parallel evolution has been discussed quite a
bit on Internet by us. So I do not understand why you are still convinced
that the postion of SAQ is that of a distinct descent between humans and
the other animals. Several people have quite successfully shown IMHO that
SAQ can also be understood NOT to imply any parallel evolution at all. You
might check previous postings.
For my part I am waiting for an authentic translation of SAQ.
Baha'i love,
Enrico Indiogine (sind...@nmsu.edu), Las Cruces, New Mexico
"My first counsel is this: Posses a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that
thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting"
* Baha'u'llah *
John Haukness
only difference is I take it that you see all life originating from a
single source, and so I would ask why can't the big bang, or God, or
science forces, have multiple source beginnings of differing life forms
and what makes it improbable that these different sources would not have
similar chromosone structures? Yours truely, john
Timothy A. Nolan
ho...@helios.usq.edu.au (ron house) writes:
rh>that I believe firmly that no one or institution that ever existed
rh>is infallible, even Baha'u'llah,
Ron,
I am interested to know how you, as a Baha'i, understand the following
quotes from Baha'u'llah and from Abdu'l Baha. The first two are from the
book _The World Order of Baha'u'llah_, pages 106-109.
Baha'u'llah wrote:
"Naught is seen in My temple but the Temple of God, and in My beauty
but His Beauty, and in My being but His Being, and in My self but His
Self, and in My movement but His Movement and in My acquiescence but His
Acquiescence, and in My pen but His Pen, the Mighty, the All-Praised.
There hath not been in My soul but the Truth, and in Myself naught
could be seen but God."
-The World Order of Baha'u'llah p. 109
This seems to me a clear, emphatic claim by Baha'u'llah, of infalliblity
and much more than infalliblity. How do you see it?
Baha'u'llah also wrote:
"Be fair ye peoples of the world; is it meet and seemly for you to
question the authority of one Whose presence 'He Who conversed with
God' (Moses) hath longed to attain, the beauty of Whose countenance
'God's Well-Beloved' (Muhammad) hath yearned to behold, through the
potency of Whose love the 'Spirit of God' (Jesus) ascended to heaven,
for Whose sake the 'Primal Point' (the Bab) offered up His life?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I understand you, Ron. Do you, as a Baha'i, think it IS
meet and seemly to question Baha'u'llah's authority? In my opinion,
Baha'u'llah did claim, many times, that He was infallible, and more
than infallible. As I see it, therefore, to deny Baha'u'llah's
infalliblity is to question His authority.
It is obvious that someone who has not accepted Baha'u'llah's
claim might question His authority. I have trouble understanding
how someone who is a Baha'i, and who therefore has accepted Baha'u'llah's
claim, can question His authority. But maybe I have misunderstood
this matter; perhaps you can illuminate my thinking.
In Abdu'l Baha's Will and Testament, He wrote:
"...That which this body, [The Universal House of Justice]
whether unanimously or by a majority doth carry, that is verily the truth
and the purpose of God Himself"
" ...The Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House
of Justice....are both under the care and protection of the Abha Beauty,
under the shelter and UNERRING guidance of the Exalted One (the Bab)...
Whatsoever they decide is of God." (emphasis added)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think these are claims, in very plain words, that the Universal
House of Justice and the Guardian are infallible. Do you agree or
disagree with Abdu'l Baha?
Tim Nolan ta...@cornell.edu
ron house
>In article <2raiub$m...@pdx1.world.net>
> ho...@helios.usq.edu.au (ron house) writes:
>rh>that I believe firmly that no one or institution that ever existed
>rh>is infallible, even Baha'u'llah,
>Ron,
> I am interested to know how you, as a Baha'i, understand the following
>quotes from Baha'u'llah and from Abdu'l Baha. The first two are from the
>book _The World Order of Baha'u'llah_, pages 106-109.
OK
>Baha'u'llah wrote:
>
> "Naught is seen in My temple but the Temple of God, and in My beauty
>but His Beauty, and in My being but His Being, and in My self but His
>Self, and in My movement but His Movement and in My acquiescence but His
>Acquiescence, and in My pen but His Pen, the Mighty, the All-Praised.
>There hath not been in My soul but the Truth, and in Myself naught
>could be seen but God."
> -The World Order of Baha'u'llah p. 109
I understand this to be spiritual writing, not to be interpreted in
a "petty, literal-minded" (quote from Universal House of Justice) manner.
>This seems to me a clear, emphatic claim by Baha'u'llah, of infalliblity
>and much more than infalliblity. How do you see it?
Actually, it doesn't say so, but I agree that elsewhere He does say so,
and when He does, I believe Him to be mistaken.
>Baha'u'llah also wrote:
> "Be fair ye peoples of the world; is it meet and seemly for you to
>question the authority of one Whose presence 'He Who conversed with
>God' (Moses) hath longed to attain, the beauty of Whose countenance
>'God's Well-Beloved' (Muhammad) hath yearned to behold, through the
>potency of Whose love the 'Spirit of God' (Jesus) ascended to heaven,
>for Whose sake the 'Primal Point' (the Bab) offered up His life?"
>I'm not sure I understand you, Ron. Do you, as a Baha'i, think it IS
>meet and seemly to question Baha'u'llah's authority?
Not at all. Baha'u'llah said that two things are essential: recognition
of the manifestation and obedience to his command. Baha'is, including
myself, should do both of those. But _correctness_ is not the same as
_authority_. The Australian Government has _authority_ which I recognise
and obey, but I certainly don't think that they are _correct_, not even
most of the time. So my position is certainly a possible one for a
Baha'i. Most Baha'is might not like it, but then I don't like the
anti-intellectual obscurantism of most Baha'is, either.
>['Abdu'l-Baha wrote] "That which this body, [The Universal House of Justice]
> whether unanimously or by a majority doth carry, that is verily the truth
> and the purpose of God Himself"
And 'Abdu'l-Baha is also mistaken. For a really _trivial_ example: was
it the purpose of God Himself that thousands of Baha'is lost money
buying plane tickets to the Phillipines conference that never occurred
due to the revolution there? (Yes, I know for a fact this happened.)
There is no point quoting vast amounts of literature saying that they
are infallible; if I don't believe they are, then I will disregard _any_
number of bald statements. And given the fact that each one of these
figures has made distinct errors, I don't see how you can offer any
other proof.
>I think these are claims, in very plain words, that the Universal
>House of Justice and the Guardian are infallible. Do you agree or
>disagree with Abdu'l Baha?
I disagree with 'Abdu'l-Baha about most things. For example, I disagree
that the Tablet of the Covenant contains a statement that 'Abdu'l-Baha
is infallible. Of course, you might insist that he _is_ infallible, and so
the tablet _must_ contain such a statement. Well, that would just prove
that Baha'u'llah used invisible ink, because there certainly isn't any
_visible_ statement to that effect in that tablet.
I think the Baha'i Faith needs to take a good look at itself. Instead
of maintaining this infallibility fiction, accept that we can be no more
certain than our own skills can guarantee, because it is _we_ who decide
which religion to accept in the first place, so nothing has any greater
assurance than our own fallible natures can provide. Maybe God did send
infallible scriptures, but we sure can't infallibly say which ones they
were. (And this is a good argument against _any_ infallible scriptures.)