Re;Opinions

[Roger Doost]

I think it is both interesting and frightening at the same time how our
intellectualism allows us to twist and turn the most basic of the Baha'i
teachings. Not having a living interpreter of Baha'i teachings does not
mean, in my opinion, that we can let every one do and say whatever they
want to do and say and conclude that "well, this is their
interpretation". If we look through Light of Guidance, we find answers
to most of our questions. Yes, "we have unity in diversity"; but also
yes, we do not accept or condone homosexuality (the practice of it), sex
outside of marriage, drinking, use of drugs, political partisanship,
political propaganda, etc., etc. His is the law and standard, and the
followers of the Greatest Name gladly follow those laws and rules and are
not concerned that if such standards of behavior are required 2/3 of the
world will never embrace the Faith. So be it and may be they won't. I
think it is part of our wishful thinking wanting to see the globe under
the rule of the Faith through total conversion. Baha'u'llah wants the
hearts of men and as Abdul'Baha says some one who may not even have heard
of the word Baha'i may in fact be a Baha'i if he practices the teachings,
and vice versa if one claims to be an adherent but does not follow the
teachings. Yes, we have our short comings and no one is perfect, but His
words are the standards. He may forgive our deviations, but we cannot
twist and turn and change that Supreme standard and justify it by saying
that well there is no living interpreter and that was my understanding of
it. Baha'i teachings are extremely clear on every issue and whereever we
have a misunderstanding, we must consult, discuss, refer to assemblies,
and ultimately to Universal House of Justice and be guided by that
supreme body. Such an honor it is to wear the name of the Greatest Name!
And so honor it is to uphold His teachings and standards without
tampering with them. His Humble Servant, Roger K. Doost
(DRO...@CLEMSON.EDU)
--

[[G. Brent Poirier]]

On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Roger Doost wrote:

> I think it is both interesting and frightening at the same time how our
> intellectualism allows us to twist and turn the most basic of the Baha'i
> teachings.

On this point, I would like to address the subject of the principle of
the "relativity of religious truth."

I think it's important to look closely at the Guardian's
statement that "religious truth is not absolute but relative."
Our understanding of so much else in the Faith depends on how he
meant that phrase. It is sometimes understood as, "the Baha'i
Writings mean whatever each believer thinks they mean, and are
relative to his or her own understanding." However, if we look
at this statement in context, Shoghi Effendi uses "the relativity
of religious Truth" synonymously with "progressive revelation," not
in the sense of intellectual relativism. The phrase appears six times in
Shoghi Effendi's writings:

"To them will the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar* symbolize the
fundamental verity underlying the Baha'i Faith, that
religious truth is not absolute but relative, that
Divine Revelation is not final but progressive."
(Baha'i Administration p. 185)
[*Baha'i Temple]

Repudiating the claim of any religion to be the final
revelation of God to man, disclaiming finality for His
own Revelation, Baha'u'llah inculcates the basic
principle of the relativity of religious truth, the
continuity of Divine Revelation, the progressiveness of
religious experience.
(The Promised Day is Come, p. 108)

The fundamental principle enunciated by Baha'u'llah ...
is that religious truth is not absolute but relative,
that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive
process, that all the great religions of the world are
divine in origin, that their basic principles are in
complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one
and the same, that their teachings are but facets of
one truth, that their functions are complementary, that
they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their
doctrines, and that their missions represent successive
stages in the spiritual evolution of human society. . .
(Statement to the United Nations Special Palestine
Committee, quoted in The Promised Day is Come, p. v).

Let no one, however, mistake my purpose. The
Revelation, of which Baha'u'llah is the source and
center, abrogates none of the religions that have
preceded it, nor does it attempt, in the slightest
degree, to distort their features or to belittle their
value. It disclaims any intention of dwarfing any of
the Prophets of the past, or of whittling down the
eternal verity of their teachings. It can, in no wise,
conflict with the spirit that animates their claims,
nor does it seek to undermine the basis of any man's
allegiance to their cause. Its declared, its primary
purpose is to enable every adherent of these Faiths to
obtain a fuller understanding of the religion with
which he stands identified, and to acquire a clearer
apprehension of its purpose. It is neither eclectic in
the presentation of its truths, nor arrogant in the
affirmation of its claims. Its teachings revolve around
the fundamental principle that religious truth is not
absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is
progressive, not final. Unequivocally and without the
least reservation it proclaims all established
religions to be divine in origin, identical in their
aims, complementary in their functions, continuous in
their purpose, indispensable in their value to mankind.
(The World Order of Baha'u'llah, pp. 57-58)

It should also be borne in mind that, great as is the
power manifested by this Revelation and however vast
the range of the Dispensation its Author has
inaugurated, it emphatically repudiates the claim to be
regarded as the final revelation of God's will and
purpose for mankind. To hold such a conception of its
character and functions would be tantamount to a
betrayal of its cause and a denial of its truth. It
must necessarily conflict with the fundamental
principle which constitutes the bedrock of Baha'i
belief, the principle that religious truth is not
absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is
orderly, continuous and progressive and not spasmodic
or final. Indeed, the categorical rejection by the
followers of the Faith of Baha'u'llah of the claim to
finality which any religious system inaugurated by the
Prophets of the past may advance is as clear and
emphatic as their own refusal to claim that same
finality for the Revelation with which they stand
identified.
(The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 115)

Within a compass of two hundred pages it [The Book of
Certitude] proclaims unequivocally the existence and
oneness of a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible,
the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient,
omnipresent and almighty; asserts the relativity of
religious truth and the continuity of Divine Revelation
... (God Passes By p. 139)

I hope that these quotations will provide the context for what
Shoghi Effendi intended by this term.

-----------------------
Brent Poirier
gpoi...@acca.nmsu.edu