A Baha'i's view of atonement

[Rationalt]

RationalT,

With the The Bible and the Quran, many of the teachings were symbolic. The followers took them literally.

How do you know they are symbolic ?.Have you actually read the quran verses posted ?.

Even though Christ tried to explain the symbolism

-
The more pertinent book is Quran since bahaiuallah affirms it explicitly.

I am not interested in bible discussions in this thread.

such as with sayings like "let the dead bury their dead" and "the Son of Man which is in Heaven" (while He was still alive!) and about the symbolic return of Elijah as John the Baptist. And yet still most Christians expect to see Jesus of Nazareth floating down out of the sky!

In the Baha'i Revelation, many of the writings are STILL symbolic, but often clearly stated as such. Other times they are clearly stated as being literal.

That is the position of the Baha'i Faith, from front to back, top to bottom. End of story.

There is a whole book by Baha'u'llah explaining this, it is called the Kitab-i-Iqan (book of certitude):

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán

You may declare it as end of story but the evidence points to a different story altogether.Since you (or other bahais)have no intention to actually discuss anything I have to leave things at that.

 

[light upon light]

How do you know they are symbolic ?.Have you actually read the quran verses posted ?.

Yes, I have read them.

I believe they are symbolic, as Baha'u'llah has stated that they are, and it makes sense. A physical hell with flames doesn't make logical sense. It doesn't fit into what we now know about the nature of the universe, physical reality, the body, etc.

Baha'is would go further and state that heaven and hell are conditions of our being in this life as well as the next.

Regarding the continuous regrowing and burning of skins in the reference you cited, that reminds me of the Buddhist perception of the nature of ego-centered consciousness - that it is continuous suffering, as the lower self can never attain permanent satisfaction for its self-centered desires. Continual pain as new skins (desires) are continuously created, identified with, and pain results. Only a spiritual awareness can end that cycle.

-
The more pertinent book is Quran since bahaiuallah affirms it explicitly.

He affirms that all references to heaven and hell are symbolic, in all the scriptures of the past.

I am not interested in bible discussions in this thread.

Uh, you didn't start the thread - Susan did, and it was originally about the crucifixion, not the Qur'an.

You may declare it as end of story but the evidence points to a different story altogether.Since you (or other bahais)have no intention to actually discuss anything I have to leave things at that.

There is nothing to discuss. Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith categorically reject any literal interpretation of hell in any of the scriptures - the Old Testament, New Testament, Quran, the Gita, or any of the Babi and Baha'i texts.

Of course, many Christians and Muslims disagree, but that is the Baha'i position, without question. Baha'is really don't have anything else to say about it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We all believe what we believe.

 

[Rationalt]

Yes, I have read them.

I believe they are symbolic, as Baha'u'llah has stated that they are, ..

As psycho said above you believe what you want to believe.Just don't pass them as facts.

 

[dazed]

No, Abdu'l-Baha said many religious people believe in nonsense and peddle it as religion: - that drives many thoughtful people away people from religion.

Silly me. And here I thought that holy wars, suicide bombings, intolerant, clergy abuses ... are the driving forces.

 

[Masihi]

I don't buy the symbolism angle either.

Besides, Christ is the first to mention hell, Gehenna, and as the first and source for all proceeding writings, he saw it as a location where both soul & body enter into. No symbolism.

Go with the source!

 

[smaneck]

People de-convert all the time.

.

And that isn't a problem in the Baha'i Faith. Our supreme governing body, the Universal House of Justice writes:

"Acceptance of the Faith is the voluntary act of an individual and is registered by the appropriate Bahá'í institution unless it has good reason not to do so. Likewise, a Bahá'í is free to leave the Faith voluntarily. . .

Once a person's resignation from the Faith has been accepted, his status is that of a non-Bahá'í and - except as noted below - his relationship with Bahá'í institutions and individual believers is the same as that of any other non-Bahá'í. As in all human relationships, the closeness of this connection, and the warmth of friendship, depend upon personal factors."

 

[smaneck]

Besides, Christ is the first to mention hell, Gehenna,

Correct, and Gehenna was a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem "where the fire always burns [from compost combusting] and the worm [maggots] never die."

Sounds pretty symbolic to me.

 

[smaneck]

Silly me. And here I thought that holy wars, suicide bombings, intolerant, clergy abuses ... are the driving forces.

Ask the atheists here. I think they will tell you they don't believe because it doesn't make sense to them, not because of corruption.

 

[Rationalt]

Besides, Christ is the first to mention hell, Gehenna, and as the first and source for all proceeding writings, he saw it as a location where both soul & body enter into.

I thought Greek had the concept of hell (Tartarus) .The Persians also had a full concept of hell much before Jesus.That is just only the geographic vicinity I am aware of.

 

[smaneck]

I thought Greek had the concept of hell (Tartarus) .The Persians also had a full concept of hell much before Jesus.

Sure, but the word used in the Qur'an is a direct cognate of the word Jesus used Gehenna, which was a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem considered cursed because the Canaanites used to use it for baby sacrifices.

 

[Rationalt]

Sure, but the word used in the Qur'an is a direct cognate of the word Jesus used Gehenna, which was a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem considered cursed because the Canaanites used to use it for baby sacrifices.

You have something mixed up there. Jesus used the word hades (greek for underworld in which hell/Tartarus is part of) . Quranic jahannum was derived from hebrew Gehenna.

 

[smaneck]

You have something mixed up there. Jesus used the word hades (greek for underworld in which hell/Tartarus is part of) . Quranic jahannum was derived from hebrew Gehenna.

Newsflash: Jesus didn't speak Greek.

Matthew 5:22: "....whoever shall say, "You fool," shall be guilty enough to go into the, 'Gehenna.'"
Matthew 5:29: "....it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into, 'Gehenna.'"
Matthew 5:30: "....better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into, 'Gehenna.'"
Matthew 10:28: "....rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in, 'Gehenna.'"
Matthew 18:9: "It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than with two eyes to be thrown into the, 'Gehenna.'"
Matthew 23:15: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you... make one proselyte...twice as much a child of 'Gehenna' as yourselves."
Matthew 23:33, to the Pharisees: "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you to escape the sentence of, 'Gehenna'?"
Mark 9:43: "It is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into, 'Gehenna,' into the unquenchable fire."
Mark 9:45: "It is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into, 'Gehenna.'"
Mark 9:47: "It is better for you to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into, 'Gehenna.'"
Luke 12:5: "....fear the One who, after He has killed has authority to cast into, 'Gehenna;' yes, I tell you, fear Him."
James 3:6: "And the tongue is a fire,...and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by, 'Gehenna.'"

 

[Masihi]

I thought Greek had the concept of hell (Tartarus) .The Persians also had a full concept of hell much before Jesus.That is just only the geographic vicinity I am aware of.

You have something mixed up there. Jesus used the word hades (greek for underworld in which hell/Tartarus is part of) . Quranic jahannum was derived from hebrew Gehenna.

Yes, Christ used "hades" a few times and I do think he knew greek but I cant say his use of the word hades is absolute proof.

But bottom line, gehenna was understood by the jewish minset as a real place, and Christ mentioned gehenna to parallel a place the soul ends up in. The above post was concerned with whether hell is a real place or not.

 

[smaneck]

Yes, Christ used "hades" a few times and I do think he knew greek but I cant say his use of the word hades is absolute proof.

Only Luke represents Jesus as using the term "hades" and then only in one place. Luke was not a Jew and probably not familiar with the word Gehenna.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Also, the greek concept of a punitive underworld bears considerably less resemblance to Christianity's equivalent than the Zoroastrian one.

All books of the New Testament were written in Greek, however, so concepts that were unfamiliar to the target audience were apparently translated as something they were familiar with.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The earliest Christian theology WRT the atonement (as communicated by the earliest church fathers) was "Christus Victor", wasn't it?

Under these auspices, Christ's death on the cross was not a legal loophole used to satisfy God's demand for blood as recompense, but a resounding victory over the forces of evil that held mankind in bondage.

The penance systems of Satisfaction Theory and Penal Substitution place an undue emphasis on man's obligation to offer payment to God and on God's obligation to Law. Instead by suffering a death that, before the Law, meant an accursed status, Christ, instead of satisfying an obligation, overthrew the power of the Law, since its condemnation of a perfect man was unjust. Furthermore, Death, Sin, and the Devil, (personalized forces in Christus Victor), are overthrown since Jesus' subsequent Resurrection breaks the dominion they once held over human life. Since the Resurrection is a mark of the Father's favor despite the Law's curse on crucified men, the Atonement, far from reinforcing the Law, deprives and subverts the Law of its ability to condemn. Thus God the Father and God the Son are not set at odds by the Cross with the first in the role of Judge and the second in the role of Sinner, but are united in seeking the downfall of the Devil's system of sin, death, and Law that enslaves humanity.
Unlike the Satisfaction Doctrine view of the Atonement (the “Latin” view) which is rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the “classic” view of the Early church (Christus Victor) is rooted in the Incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it.

 

[bling]

I find myself looking at and wondering how a person can Love God and not accept His Love. I don't see how one can separate the two.

What I wonder about though is how a person can Love God, accept His Love yet at the same time not Love those around them and treat them as such.

.

The question is if God Love us and we reject that Love as it was given (as pure charity) did Love between God and us take place?

I agree we cannot "Love" God and not Love His children (humans).

 

[smaneck]

The question is if God Love us and we reject that Love as it was given (as pure charity) did Love between God and us take place?

I think God's love is such that He will try again and again. That's why, while I can accept the notion of the crucifixion as atonement, I can't see it as a once-and-never-again event.

 

[bling]

If a child truly repents then the 'deterrent' is already there. If discipline is being handed out as a warning to other children, then it is not the sake of the child being disciplined.

It is for the sake of all God’s children.

If you as a parent have some children that really “punish” them when they are disobedient and repent then you are right the parent does not need to see to their disciplining, but there is also the need for the parent to be perceived by all his/her children as consistent, just and fair. Those children needing to be disciplined (for all the benefits I described) and do not naturally discipline themselves, will need the parent to see to their disciplining. To be “fair, just and consistent” the parent will need to see to the just/consistent disciplining of all His/her children.

Once again, the purpose of such discipline is to bring about repentance. If repentance is already there, it is useless.

The list of benefits is much longer than just repentance.

Sorry, but the rewards and punishments necessary to keep order in society are not the same as parental discipline. Parental discipline must *always* be corrective and its concern should always before the welfare of the child. Society, however, must concern primarily with the welfare of the community and if that means harming an individual, that is what has to be.

Do you have different degrees of discipline for your children in proportion to the offence?

Uneducated children do not perceive the huge danger with playing in the street so the “discipline” needs to be severe enough to let them realize the significance.

Yes, there is. The question is does not that relief undermine the repentance? In my experience it does. The more you beat a kid the more you have to beat them to get them to behave.

Do you have different degrees of discipline for your children in proportion to the offence?
You are not trying to get the kid to "behave" out of fear of being beaten?

Uneducated children do not perceive the huge danger with playing in the street so the “discipline” needs to be severe enough to let them realize the significance.
Everything is dependent on the child humbly accepting the discipline correctly. “Beating” a child usually does not fit the offence and can just create resentment and develop cruelty/bullying in the child himself.
True disciplining is usually harder and perceived by the child as harder on the parent than the child himself.

If God treated us all 'equally' He would have given us all equal gifts, equal opportunity, etc. That just didn't happened. God's justice cannot be measured in human terms.

What? We are not “equal” physically here on earth (that is insignificant), but we equally have the opportunity as mature adults to accept or reject God’s Love (gifts of true value).