Re: No ambiguity

Good thread Kent!

Your main point, as I understand it, quite apart from your two wives
example is: why do religionists seem to inevitably lose sight of the
all
important universal messages of the founders of their respective
religions
and begin to get entangled in the intricacies of dogma and doctrine?

The Senex-Puer Aeternus dynamic that I mention in Brendan's - Who are
the
dissidents? thread goes some way in explaining this pattern that
religion
seems to inevitably fall into.

As a good and present example has been Bill's reaction to this thread
which
totally misses your main point, which wasn't the two wife issue at all
but
the phenomena of the gradual drift away from the central ideals of
religion
to the Gordian knot of the particulars of dogma and doctrine.

As Rob Preece mentions in his article - Individuation or Institution*
it is
the impetus of Puer Aeternus ideals and innovation which originally
gives
birth to new religious movements, to new religions. Baha'u'llah and the
Bab
were both very much idealists, this is becoming ever more apparent
these
days as we see the entrenchment and conflict between Islamic
traditionalism
and modernism. Baha'is should even more easily see today that compared
with
Islamic Shiara law, the laws of Baha'u'llah are innovative and
progressive.

The eternal dynamic of Puer Aeternus - idealism, vs. Senex -
traditionalism
seems to inexorably raise its head though, as is seen today in the
Baha'i
faith.

Reconciling the idealism and innovation that is inherent in Puer
Aeternus
inspired religionists,with the Senex desire to create and protect
orthodox and
traditional religious forms and structures is just as difficult today
as it
was in Baha'u'llah's day as well as in the day of all preceding
religions.

The important thing is to be conscious of these human tendencies and
not
allow them to distract us from those all important central universal
principles, such as Baha'u'llah's -Oneness of Humanity. This is no easy
feat.

Abdu'l-Baha' well understood our human propensity to confuse the outer
form
of religion with it's "original intention". When we begin to see the
outer
form of religion as the end instead of a means to achieve those
original
intentions then we are already off track. If we compromise that central
principle of Baha'u'llah's teachings - the oneness of humanity, which
Shoghi
himself stated was "pivot" round which all Baha'i teachings circle, in
attempts to somehow purify or keep pure a set orthodoxy, our focus on
the
"original intention" is already astray. Thus is the original intent and
purpose for religion thwarted, as Abdu'l-Baha' himself outlines in the
following:

"Thus religion which was destined to become the cause of friendship
has
become the cause of enmity. Religion, which was meant to be sweet
honey, is
changed into bitter poison. Religion, the function of which was to
illumine
humanity, has become the factor of obscuration and gloom. Religion,
which
was to confer the consciousness of everlasting life, has become the
fiendish
instrument of death. As long as these superstitions are in the hands
and
these nets of dissimulation and hypocrisy in the fingers, religion will
be
the most harmful agency on this planet. These superannuated traditions,
which are inherited unto the present day, must be abandoned, and thus
free
from past superstitions we must investigate the original intention. The
basis on which they have fabricated the superstructures will be seen to
be
one, and that one, absolute reality; and as reality is indivisible,
complete
unity and amity will be instituted and the true religion of God will
become
unveiled in all its beauty and sublimity in the assemblage of the
world."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 161)

Yours Larry

*http://www.mudra.co.uk/mudra_individuation.html

---------

Kent Johnson wrote:
Hi Bill. I guess it is time to recap the recap. In the last recap I asked
why the issue of whether or not Jesus married is comparable to Baha'u'llah
proclaiming Baha'is can have two wives.

You answered with this:

What part of Conferred Infallibility are you having problems with<?

I should ask you right back, which of the two unrelated issues has something
to do with Conferred Infallibility in your mind. Or are you saying that
both of them are related to the issue of Confirred Infallibility? If so,
how?

..sounds to me like your opinion is that the explanations of 'Abdul Baha
are not infallible even though His Holiness Baha'u'llah said they are<

How could you possibly have reached that conclusion from what I wrote?

So it appears from here that since a Baha'i has already accepted
what His Holiness Baha'u'llah has said as the absolute truth in-toto
you are saying that His Holiness Baha'u'llah was a liar and therefore
a false prophet. <

Not at all, Bill.

Or you are saying that the conferred infallibility
regarding the authority of 'Abdul Baha is false, which is IMO is
breaking the covenant with His Holiness Baha'u'llah.<

I have no idea even which issue of the several that you bring up is the one
you are talking about.

Care to enumerate?

Of course, Bill. Just explain to me which issue you want me to talk about.

--Kent





"Bill Pike" <willi4470@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vgve82t7d0u5k4vfo0s12cudq2o6ve3mdl@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:07:37 CST, "Kent Johnson" <kent@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Hi Bill. Let's recap. I said that Baha'u'llah wrote in his Most Holy
Book
that Baha'is could have two wives, and Abdu'l-Baha "interpreted" that to
mean Baha'is could have only one wife. I said that situation sound silly
to
non-Baha'is, and you answered this:

"No more so than the current Christian discussion as to whether His
Holiness Jesus Christ was ever married. Marriage was a requirement
for observant Jews of the time and even more so for rabbis."

What part of Conferred Infallibility are you having problems with,
sounds to me like your opinion is that the explanations of 'Abdul Baha
are not infallible even though His Holiness Baha'u'llah said they are
so. So it appears from here that since a Baha'i has already accepted
what His Holiness Baha'u'llah has said as the absolute truth in-toto
you are saying that His Holiness Baha'u'llah was a liar and therefore
a false prophet. Or you are saying that the conferred infallibility
regarding the authority of 'Abdul Baha is false, which is IMO is
breaking the covenant with His Holiness Baha'u'llah.
Care to enumerate?
Pax Terra


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No ambiguity
    ... religious truth is not absolute but relative, ... It is hard to accept that your beliefs are relative and not absolute ... of the doctrines of ones own religion, including the Baha'i faith, from ... are not infallible even though His Holiness Baha'u'llah said they are< ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Divine revelation and social construction
    ... His Holiness Muhammad is the last prophet? ... Well mankind has tried to unite under secular governments for near ... Muslim religion. ... Well that is fine for the Muslims but the Christians ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: No ambiguity
    ... but enough that we should acknowledge the ambiguity. ... are not infallible even though His Holiness Baha'u'llah said they are< ... What part of Conferred Infallibility are you having problems with, ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: POT: Thoughts?
    ... Whether we believe in God or karma, ethics is the ... foundation of every religion. ... -His Holiness the Dalai Lama ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
Quantcast