They Don't Know If They Know
reli...@yahoo.com
The Bahais teach that God is an unknowable essence. They say that God
exists but we can't know who he is other than in the reflection of
himself in those who are "the manifestation of God" (Jesus, Mohammed,
Buddha, Bahuallah, Moses, etc.). Now when most people hear this they
say, 'wait a minute, each of these taught different things'.
Mohammed, for example, believed that Jesus was not the Son of God; and
Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity, which Bahaism denies;
Buddhism is agnostic, saying that they don't even know whether or not
God exists at all. How do the Bahais reconcile this discrepancy?
Well, they say that God is unknowable. If this is the case, how can
they know if a person is a manifestation of God? If I claim that John
Moore is a manifestation of God, how do they prove I am not? Their
answer would probably be that my practice of the Christian faith is
inconsistent with what God is. But how can they say this if they have
admitted elsewhere that God is unknowable? It's another absurdity!
Supposing I said 'I look just like the invisible man'. And you say
that 'no one has seen the invisible man, how do we know you look like
him?' So I say, 'Trust me.' That's exactly the position the Bahais
are in: they are claiming that their leaders (and the faith they
present) are manifestations of a god about whom they do not know
anything.
When presented with this inconsistency, Bahai leaders will tell you
that the only thing on which the manifestations of God disagree are
non-essential things. The problem with this statement is that there
is not really much left; once you get rid of the nature of God (to
most people the foundation of any religion or theology), as something
that is non-essential you run into a credibility and integrity
problem. After all, their religion is contingent upon their
manifestations of God and what they say in their revelations. This
then, is a very pliable religion. They remake and reshape their
manifestations and rules of faith by what they want them to be at any
given time. Whenever a Bahai runs into a theological claim by another
faith, they simply say that what Jesus (or others) said they didn't
mean and they interpret it the way that suits them at the moment. If
that is the case, then you have a religion which cannot be disproven
in principle. It would be like saying, 'all Scotsmen are good
people'. And then you point out an article in a newspaper where a
Scotsman robbed a bank. The Bahai-like response would be that 'he's
not really a Scotsman'. This is typical of the changing of the rules
which the Bahais buy into.
Jerry Joplin
hoping we can discuss these posts.
This is another part of John Moore's page. You can get a good idea
about John Moore's beliefs by looking over on:
http://www.ao.net/~jmo/john/personal/cults.html where he categorizes
Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian
Scientists, and just about anyone else who doesn't share his literal
beliefs in the Bible, as cultists. He says all of these people are
"True to Satan's heirs and plans."
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The Bahais teach that God is an unknowable essence. They say that God
> exists but we can't know who he is other than in the reflection of
> himself in those who are "the manifestation of God" (Jesus, Mohammed,
> Buddha, Bahuallah, Moses, etc.). Now when most people hear this they
> say, 'wait a minute, each of these taught different things'.
Wait a minute, didn't Jesus teach something different from Moses? I
wonder why this question never occurs to John Moore yet he believes in
both Jesus and Moses.
> Mohammed, for example, believed that Jesus was not the Son of God; and
> Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity, which Bahaism denies;
> Buddhism is agnostic, saying that they don't even know whether or not
> God exists at all. How do the Bahais reconcile this discrepancy?
How do Christians reconcile the discrepancy between Moses' teachings and
Jesus' teachings? When you answer that for Christianity, you also
answer it for Baha'i.
"Today the enmity and rivalry existing between the religions are over
mere words. It is an established fact that the followers of all the
religions believe in a reality, the benefits of which are universal;
which reality is a medium between God and man. The Jews call that
reality Moses, the Christians Christ, the Mussulmans Mohammed, the
Buddhists Buddha and the Zoroastrians 156 Zoroaster. Now mark well
that none of these religionists have ever seen the founders; they have
only heard his name. Could they overlook these names they would at once
realize that all believe in a perfect reality which is an intermediary
between the Almighty and the creatures."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 155)
> Well, they say that God is unknowable. If this is the case, how can
> they know if a person is a manifestation of God? If I claim that John
> Moore is a manifestation of God, how do they prove I am not? Their
> answer would probably be that my practice of the Christian faith is
> inconsistent with what God is. But how can they say this if they have
> admitted elsewhere that God is unknowable? It's another absurdity!
How does John Moore "know" that Jesus was the Son of God? Or how does
he "know" that Moses spoke directly with God and brought the Mosaic law?
If the answer is "because the Bible tells me so" then how does he
"know" that the Bible is the word of God? I think once he answers this
question, he'll see its not an absurdity at all.
> Supposing I said 'I look just like the invisible man'. And you say
> that 'no one has seen the invisible man, how do we know you look like
> him?' So I say, 'Trust me.' That's exactly the position the Bahais
> are in: they are claiming that their leaders (and the faith they
> present) are manifestations of a god about whom they do not know
> anything.
Again, the same fallacious reasoning could be applied to Jesus or Moses,
but John Moore excludes these manifestations for reasons unknown.
> When presented with this inconsistency, Bahai leaders will tell you
> that the only thing on which the manifestations of God disagree are
> non-essential things. The problem with this statement is that there
> is not really much left; once you get rid of the nature of God (to
> most people the foundation of any religion or theology), as something
> that is non-essential you run into a credibility and integrity
> problem. After all, their religion is contingent upon their
> manifestations of God and what they say in their revelations. This
> then, is a very pliable religion. They remake and reshape their
> manifestations and rules of faith by what they want them to be at any
> given time. Whenever a Bahai runs into a theological claim by another
> faith, they simply say that what Jesus (or others) said they didn't
> mean and they interpret it the way that suits them at the moment. If
> that is the case, then you have a religion which cannot be disproven
> in principle. It would be like saying, 'all Scotsmen are good
> people'. And then you point out an article in a newspaper where a
> Scotsman robbed a bank. The Bahai-like response would be that 'he's
> not really a Scotsman'. This is typical of the changing of the rules
> which the Bahais buy into.
There is a strawman element to this argument based upon his statement
that "once you get rid of the nature of God." None of the Baha'i
teachings say we should "get rid" of the nature of God.
However, once he's past that, I think John Moore could once again answer
his own question by considering Jesus' elaboration on one of the ten
commandments carved by God himself in the tables of the 10 commandments.
"5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
commit adultery: 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart."
(King James Bible, Matthew)
Also, here's another quote from the Sermon on the Mount for John Moore:
"5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God."
(King James Bible, Matthew)
Jerry
You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I
say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has
already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Randy Burns
Errol is not into discussion. Do you know how to set up a killfile?
Randy
--
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
news:vnjee8i...@corp.supernews.com...
Pat Kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> They Don't Know If They Know
>
> The Bahais teach that God is an unknowable essence. They say that God
> exists but we can't know who he is other than in the reflection of
> himself in those who are "the manifestation of God" (Jesus, Mohammed,
> Buddha, Bahuallah, Moses, etc.). Now when most people hear this they
> say, 'wait a minute, each of these taught different things'.
Maybe, but my "wait a minute" is why do we insist that we should "know who
he is"? Why do we want God to be like the guy next door? What is wrong
with man that we insist on dragging God down to our level?
>
> Mohammed, for example, believed that Jesus was not the Son of God;
Well, I recall the Holy Qoran saying that God would not beget a Son, but
of anything, would say, "Be" and it would be. I don't recall this, "Jesus
was not the Son of God" being spelled out like that in the Holy Qoran.
Perhaps you could cite a verse?
> and
> Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity,
Sure, and Christianity is not a Manifestation of God. The Christians'
Manifestation of God said, "the Lord is God, the Lord is One."
> which Bahaism denies;
Baha'is agree with Jesus.
>
> Buddhism is agnostic, saying that they don't even know whether or not
> God exists at all. How do the Bahais reconcile this discrepancy?
It is not necessary that all people believe the same thing. As you noted,
many Christians espouse Trinitarianism, despite Jesus Christ's statement
that God is One.
>
> Well, they say that God is unknowable. If this is the case, how can
> they know if a person is a manifestation of God?
In much the same way that a Christian might know the Son of God. "No man
hath seen God at any time; the Son hath made Him known." Jn 1:18 It helps
to understand what Jesus taught, if you read the Gospel.
> If I claim that John
> Moore is a manifestation of God, how do they prove I am not?
Go ahead, George, if you want to be a Manfestation of God, by claiming
that John Moore is, go ahead. I will ask that you take your campaign to
another newsgroup, though.
> Their
> answer would probably be that my practice of the Christian faith is
> inconsistent with what God is.
A Christian, now? Congratulations.
> But how can they say this if they have
> admitted elsewhere that God is unknowable? It's another absurdity!
I might consider prophecy in evaluating your claim. I might consider if
you have anything of character in you, and then dismiss your claims as
unlikely, very unlikely.
>
> Supposing I said 'I look just like the invisible man'.
I would not believe you.
> And you say
> that 'no one has seen the invisible man, how do we know you look like
> him?' So I say, 'Trust me.' That's exactly the position the Bahais
> are in: they are claiming that their leaders (and the faith they
> present) are manifestations of a god about whom they do not know
> anything.
>
Well, it really gets a bit more involved than "Jes trus' me!" Rev.
William Miller, and many other 19th century Christians, had interpreted
the Bible to know that Jesus would soon return. The Bab fulfilled many of
these prophecies. He foretold Him Whom God shall make manifest, and
Baha'u'llah is this Person, by the strength of His verses, and His
character.
>
> When presented with this inconsistency, Bahai leaders will tell you
> that the only thing on which the manifestations of God disagree are
> non-essential things.
Pork, and cheeseburgers?
> The problem with this statement is that there
> is not really much left; once you get rid of the nature of God (to
> most people the foundation of any religion or theology),
I see the problem here. There is a complete confusion of creature with
Creator. The idolator fashions his own god, and so he knows the nature of
his god. The believer finds a God Which has always been, One without
nature.
> as something
> that is non-essential you run into a credibility and integrity
> problem.
Yes, there is an incompatibility with the idolatry which you demand. The
Baha'i ought to be open to God as God exists, rather than insisting on
some fabrication whose nature is fully known. This fully known god must
be fully comprehensible to finite man, and, therefore, must itself be
finite, and, since it must be finite, it can not be Infinite, and, since
it can not be Infinite, it can not be the God of the believer. This is a
difference between real idolatry and real faith.
(snip)
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
reli...@yahoo.com
I'm
hoping we can discuss these posts.
Jerry,
I have no need to defend any of the material (challenge & critique
against Bahaism) I am posting. The posts are sent to try and create
objective dialogue. Its fundamentalist BIGS who are the ones who have
to do the defending in front of a TRB readership against the posts I
send. The authors have already made their statements. Also, there
are others on TRB like Eric, Robert & QisQos with stronger Christian
convictions than I have who can defend, argue and debate Christian
scriptures against Bahai interpretation a lot better than myself.
Furthermore the oxymoronic double speak (from the literal narrative to
parable symbolism ) which BIGS use to interpret the gospels never
ceases to amaze me.
There is a total difference between *disbelief* in Christianity and
its scriptures, and trying to *revise* or *reconstruct* another form
or type of Christianity which never ever existed only in the minds of
Baha'is.
The JW's and Mormons ( as only two examples) who have *revised* or
*reconstructed* a type of Christianity which they actually practice.
But the Bahai's they created a *revised type of historical
Christianity* which not only never existed, and they have no intention
of practicing, but only to use as a propagating tool to promote
Bahai'sm amongst westerners who have turned their back's on
Christianity through ignorance and *disbelief*.
Errol
Jerry Joplin
> I have no need to defend any of the material (challenge & critique
> against Bahaism) I am posting. The posts are sent to try and create
> objective dialogue. Its fundamentalist BIGS who are the ones who have
> to do the defending in front of a TRB readership against the posts I
> send. The authors have already made their statements. Also, there
> are others on TRB like Eric, Robert & QisQos with stronger Christian
> convictions than I have who can defend, argue and debate Christian
> scriptures against Bahai interpretation a lot better than myself.
Hi Errol,
Perhaps you're right, I should have asked if you were ready to engage in
a dialogue of all the posts you were making.
> Furthermore the oxymoronic double speak (from the literal narrative to
> parable symbolism ) which BIGS use to interpret the gospels never
> ceases to amaze me.
The oxymoronic double speak has historically been attributed to
Christianity, especially the doctrine of the trinity, Baha'is offer a
logical alternative. Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the
trinity:
"When we shall have done away with the incomprehensible jargon of the
Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we
shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from
view the very simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have
unlearned everything which has been taught since his day, and got back
to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly
and worthily his disciples."
(Thomas Jefferson)
> There is a total difference between *disbelief* in Christianity and
> its scriptures, and trying to *revise* or *reconstruct* another form
> or type of Christianity which never ever existed only in the minds of
> Baha'is.
In what way? Can you give an example of Baha'is constructing a doctrine
about Christianity that never ever existed. The concept of a spiritual,
rather than physical, resurrection is shared by St. Paul himself and
many other people.
There was a poll in 1998 by Jeffrey Hadden of church leaders and it
showed that 33% of all church leaders in the USA did not believe in the
physical resurrection. So this is not a uniquely Baha'i perspective.
Here's some results by denomination of church leaders that did not
believe in the physical resurrection:
American Lutherans: 13%
Presbyterians: 30%
American Baptist: 33%
Episcopalians: 35%
Methodists: 51%
The idea that the trinity is a mistaken doctrine, has also been shared
by many people throughout history, including Jefferson (see above).
Polls and examples of people sharing Baha'i beliefs do not give proof of
their accuracy, but they demonstrate that you can hardly attribute this
to "BIGS" interpretations.
> The JW's and Mormons ( as only two examples) who have *revised* or
> *reconstructed* a type of Christianity which they actually practice.
> But the Bahai's they created a *revised type of historical
> Christianity* which not only never existed, and they have no intention
> of practicing, but only to use as a propagating tool to promote
> Bahai'sm amongst westerners who have turned their back's on
> Christianity through ignorance and *disbelief*.
Example please!
Jerry
reli...@yahoo.com
Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com wrote on 1/10/03 3:09 pm:
Jerry Joplin
>Jerry wrote:
>>reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>But the Bahai's they created a *revised type of historical
>>>Christianity* which not only never existed, and they have no
>>>intention
>>>of practicing, but only to use as a propagating tool to promote
>>>Bahai'sm amongst westerners who have turned their back's on
>>>Christianity through ignorance and *disbelief*.
>>
>>Example please!
>
Could you be a little more specific please? How does "Some Answered
Questions" represent beliefs that have never existed? And, how do you
substantiate the claim that there is no intention of practicing their
beliefs when the reference _you supplied_ is an official part of Baha'i
teachings.
Jerry
reli...@yahoo.com
Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com wrote on 1/10/03 5:30 pm:
Jerry,
Will you please inform me and other TRB readers of any sect or branch
of Christianity within the past 2000 years who believed and agreed
100% with everything Abdul Baha has said here about Christianity.
If you cant do this then this is a Bahai makebelieve concept of
Christianity which no Christian has ever
followed.............................Errol
Part Two: SOME CHRISTIAN SUBJECTS
* 16: OUTWARD FORMS AND SYMBOLS MUST BE USED TO CONVEY INTELLECTUAL
CONCEPTIONS
* 17: THE BIRTH OF CHRIST
* 18: THE GREATNESS OF CHRIST IS DUE TO HIS PERFECTIONS
* 19: THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST
* 20: THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
* 21: THE SYMBOLISM OF THE BREAD AND THE WINE
* 22: MIRACLES
* 23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
* 24: THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT UPON THE APOSTLES
* 25: THE HOLY SPIRIT
* 26: THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST AND THE DAY OF JUDGMENT
* 27: THE TRINITY
* 28: EXPLANATION OF VERSE FIVE, CHAPTER SEVENTEEN, OF THE GOSPEL
OF ST. JOHN
* 29: EXPLANATION OF VERSE TWENTY-TWO, CHAPTER FIFTEEN, OF THE
FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS
* 30: ADAM AND EVE
* 31: EXPLANATION OF BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT
* 32: EXPLANATION OF THE VERSE "FOR MANY ARE CALLED BUT FEW ARE
CHOSEN"
* 33: THE "RETURN" SPOKEN OF BY THE PROPHETS
* 34: PETER'S CONFESSION OF FAITH
* 35: PREDESTINATION
Jerry Joplin
>Jerry wrote:
>>Could you be a little more specific please? How does "Some Answered
>>Questions" represent beliefs that have never existed? And, how do you
>>substantiate the claim that there is no intention of practicing their
>>beliefs when the reference _you supplied_ is an official part of Baha'i
>>teachings.
>
> of Christianity within the past 2000 years who believed and agreed
> 100% with everything Abdul Baha has said here about Christianity.
Errol,
That's easy, members of the Baha'i Faith have shared all of these
beliefs in Christianity, of course :-) _And_ they practice those
beliefs. Simply quoting from "Some Answered Questions" doesn't
substantiate your claims that these beliefs are frauds somehow
perpetrated by Baha'is to spread their religion in the west for some
unstated nefarious purpose.
> If you cant do this then this is a Bahai makebelieve concept of
> Christianity which no Christian has ever
> followed.............................Errol
Show me one thing in "Some Answered Questions" that hasn't ever been
believed by Christians. This is generally speaking, obviously the
specifics to Baha'u'llah are going to be unique, and anyone recognizing
Baha'u'llah is probably a Baha'i. But that doesn't represent any
contradiction to Christianity, nor is it (in general) unique. For
example, from "10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF
DANIEL" the belief that Christ would return in 1844 is shared by other
Christians.
Jerry
Adelard Rubangura
> Will you please inform me and other TRB readers of any sect or branch
> of Christianity within the past 2000 years who believed and agreed
> 100% with everything Abdul Baha has said here about Christianity.
Will you please inform me and other TRB readers of any sect or branch
of Judaism within the past 2000 years who believed and agreed
100% with everything Paul has said here about Judaism.
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/
> If you cant do this then this is a Bahai makebelieve concept of
> Christianity which no Christian has ever
> followed.............................Errol
If you cant do this then this is a Christian makebelieve concept of
Judaism which no Jews has ever
followed.............................Adelard
Jerry Joplin
Adelard, this is an excellent analogy! kudos to you!
Jerry
Adelard Rubangura
> Adelard, this is an excellent analogy! kudos to you!
> Jerry
Dear Jerry, thanks :-)
Peace,
Adelard