Re: No ambiguity


Howdy Kent,

Same Larry. My newserver has gone to 'pay for sending' so I've had to
change arround all that fun account stuff under options.

What Shoghi says below makes great sense. Somehow though many Baha'is
have come to feel that the relative nature of religious truth doesn't
apply to the Baha'i teachings themselves, that somehow Baha'is are
exempted from this principle:


The fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh ... 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....

(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come)

It is hard to accept that your beliefs are relative and not absolute
because it puts the onus on oneself to sort the "nonessential aspects"
of the doctrines of ones own religion, including the Baha'i faith, from
the true aim and purpose for religion; which is to faciliate the
oneness of humanity of course.

So how do we transform religion from being the most "the most harmful
agency on this planet", as Abdu'l-Baha' himself refered to it, to being
at least a benign agency?

Listening to others is a good place to start.

Not allowing inflexibility to cause ruptures between religionists and
coreligionists because of getting entangled by the Gordian knot of
those "nonessential aspects" of the doctrines of religion.

What it sometimes comes down to is agreeing to disagree, but not
allowing that dissagreement to become a barrier to unity.

This takes great deal of openmindeness, as well as maturity.

Issues in which the particulars of religious interpretations become
involved can become very emotional issues. One such example is the
issue of women serving on the Universal House of Justice. If we make
such issues an excuse to divide each other from one another we are
defeating the purpose for religion which is to facilitate: "the
spiritual evolution of human society".

If it makes sense that women should be considered as persons, as they
declared to be by law in Canada in the 1920's, and it makes sense that
according Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms that people must be
treated equally regardless of gender, race, religion, ethnicity, and it
makes sense as well that women should not be prohibited from serving on
the United Nations, surely it makes sense then that women should not be
prohibited from serving on the Univeral House of Justice. It only makes
reasonable sense, common sense.

The unfortunate thing that occurs though is forgetting that religious
truth is relative and not absolute and an issue such as the above
becomes an excuse for divisiveness.

One aspect of religious truth which religionists have a great deal of
difficulty accepting is that it is never static, never absolute, and
that attempts to fix religion in stone is the main reason that it
remains: " the most harmful agency on earth".

Yours Larry


Kent Johnson wrote:
Hi Larry, is this Not-Heather Larry, or another?

In any case, finally, someone is reading my words. Thank you, thank you.
Thank you.

There is ambiguity, maybe lots less than in previous religious
dispensations, but enough that we should acknowledge the ambiguity.

Denying ambiguity makes is look as though we are unreasonable, like our
arguments are "It is, but it isn't" and "It's right but it's wrong"

We become another flaky group of nonsense-spouting apologists for the One
True God just like all the other nonsense-spouting apologists for the One
True God.

I began this because of my belief that unity is more important that
religious truth because of this ambiguity issue. We cannot know, but in
general terms, under the Light of God, we really do know. Being stubborn is
not a good position. However, just letting anybody argue "yes but no" does
not serve God either. Someone must be reasonable, and hopefully a few of us
on God's side will show reason, and unity, and a bit of humility.

Thanks for reading. --Kent






"diamondsouled" <rowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150067845.966951.29100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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: 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
    ... of religion with it's "original intention". ... 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: 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)
  • Re: No ambiguity
    ... rights and freedoms that they become a problem. ... religious truth is not absolute but relative, ... Since Divine Revelation is neither ... When the human rights accorded to religionists in their own religion ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
Quantcast