Obedience

[dlamberth]

I think we are in God's image in the sense we share God's spiritual attributes, not that He looks like us.

The way I look at it is that it's our souls that are an image of God.

.

 

[smaneck]

The way I look at it is that it's our souls that are an image of God.

.

That's pretty much what I meant.

 

[Zoness]

Soooooo....what does any of the last few pages have to do with ubiquitous theme of Obedience throughout religion?

 

[Gibs]

Why is not Enoch not in the Bible is because it don't need to be there as the Bible has more than most can handle.

Yes Enochs writings do contain additional light for those who want to look further and deeper and have a greater understanding.

Enoch's writings are about the only ones outside the Bible that can be relied upon.

The angels of Heaven are sent as ministering Spirits to men and there is two of the Holy to one of the evil, so we have do have two to one of ministering spirits.

Ps 91:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

 

[smaneck]

Why is not Enoch not in the Bible is because it don't need to be there as the Bible has more than most can handle.

Yes Enochs writings do contain additional light for those who want to look further and deeper and have a greater understanding.

But it is scripture?

Enoch's writings are about the only ones outside the Bible that can be relied upon.

How do you know that?

The angels of Heaven are sent as ministering Spirits to men and there is two of the Holy to one of the evil, so we have do have two to one of ministering spirits.

That still doesn't mean there are two angels for every person.

 

[dlamberth]

Enoch's writings are about the only ones outside the Bible that can be relied upon.

For me, that would be the Gospel of Thomas.

.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Soooooo....what does any of the last few pages have to do with ubiquitous theme of Obedience throughout religion?

Not much - but discussions have a way of drifting off in different directions, evolving naturally. I do not really mind that. In fact, I tend to enjoy it.


But to bring the discussion back on topic:

One huge problem I see with religious tendencies to extol scrupulous obedience [to parents, authorities, scriptures] as a virtue is the resulting ossification of the whole world view. By defining the status quo as an essentially holy institution, such religions (or secular world views) become incapable of adapting to societal changes such as the ones brought about by the industrial revolution, and at worst end up in a constant battle against new insights and social progress. Fundamentalism, creationism, the first Vatican Council declaring rationalism and democracy -among others - to be "great errors of modernity", etc.

The Baha'i at the very least try to account for that by means of the concept of progressive revelations superseding their predecessors - but even they are relying upon scriptures that are roughly 150 years old at this point, written at a time that was vastly different from the reality that surrounds us now. And if I remember correctly, these scriptures also state something to the effect that a new revelation won't arrive for several hundred years to come, discounting anything that comes inbetween as fraudulent.

In other words: traditional religions are moving far too slow to keep up with social (or technological) progress. For example, it's grotesque to determine medical ethics by pre-industrialization era standards, when today's possibilities confront us with dilemmas that simply did not exist back then. Nowadays, people whose neural functions have ceased almost completely (and will never recover) can be kept alive with machines, babies with the most extreme physical or mental deformities can survive into adulthood, organs can be transplanted, stem cells can be grown into organs with 3d printing, etc.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I think we are in God's image in the sense we share God's spiritual attributes, not that He looks like us.

The way I look at it is that it's our souls that are an image of God.

While this certainly seems to be a more mature interpretation of the Genesis myth, I do have to wonder what this is supposed to mean.

"Spiritual resemblance"?
Our moral qualities (as well as our shortcomings) are clearly tied to social behaviour we share with many other species living in communities of some sort. I've heard people claim that everything we call "good" in ourselves is what we have in common with the One True God - but those virtues are not exclusive to our species, nor are they exactly metaphysical. They are closely tied to the ins and outs of social behaviour.
Our mental qualities are prodigious in comparison with all other species on this planet - even the ones who are self-aware - yet I'd not exactly call them godlike. I'd go so far as to claim that most of us aren't even intellectually capable of understanding theoretical physics or the workings of a computer - both of which are man-made models.

So - where exactly does this resemblance reside? (Keeping dlamberth's panentheism in mind, I could imagine that he sees the "image of God" in a multitude of places, not just in Man. However, the "spiritual resemblance" as referenced by this exegesis of the Bible is most often understood as an exclusive trait of mankind, setting us essentially apart from the rest of the universe.)

 

[Arthra]

In response to Jane's comments about Baha'is above I think we regard the spiritual truths as pretty much unchanging and that goes for past dispensations..

Not all of these past scriptures are what we would consider accurate as many are based on hearsay...not actually directly derived from a Manifestation but more from what was passed down verbally over sometimes vast periods of time..but nonetheless they do contain inspiration. Later revelations are more direct and accurate in our view.

The principles that Baha'u'llah revealed that have to do with current affairs have to do with the equality of men and women... universal education... an agreed upon international language, an international court of arbitration, a representative world governrnent and so on... so far only an international court of arbitration has been achieved ..but progress in education and the rights of women are evident in many countries..

As to issues that are not covered in the Writings our guidance comes from the elected Universal House fo Justice.. and this of course relates to primarily to how Baha'is conduct themselves. So we could have guidance in areas that concern the latest scientific advances. Also many Baha'i laws are not enforced as yet and we depend on the elected House of Justice for guidance in these areas as well.

 

[dlamberth]

While this certainly seems to be a more mature interpretation of the Genesis myth, I do have to wonder what this is supposed to mean.

Jane, that's a wonderful question that pretty much defines my spiritual journey. Out of that question arises other question, for instance, what is our true Selves and what does it mean to be a more human, Human Being? It's a question that's at heart of Buddhism, Sufism, Hinduism, Christian Mysticism and any of the other Wisdom Traditions.

So - where exactly does this resemblance reside? (Keeping dlamberth's panentheism in mind, I could imagine that he sees the "image of God" in a multitude of places, not just in Man. However, the "spiritual resemblance" as referenced by this exegesis of the Bible is most often understood as an exclusive trait of mankind, setting us essentially apart from the rest of the universe.)

In reference to your use of "image of God", quite honestly I use the word "God" only for the sake of communication. I feel that it adds too much form and "I'ness" to the Divine essence. For this forum, even with the limitation it brings the word "God" works well. But your right, I do see the Divine essence not only in a multiple of places, but everywhere actually. From my perspective, there is no place with out it. To get to your point, from what I've seen, the more one opens up to their own essence, or soul if you will, the more they do open up to seeing that human beings are not set apart from the rest of the universe, that we are One and Whole with it.

As you note, that's quite a difference in perspective from the image that the Bible brings up and explains a lot for why I no longer call myself a Christian. The Christ I experience isn't bound by the Bible.

.

 

[smaneck]

For me, that would be the Gospel of Thomas.

.

There is more justification for that historically. The Gospel of Thomas was written about the same time as the canonical gospels. The Book of Enoch, on the other hand, is pseduopigraphic, in other words Enoch didn't write it. But besides being quoted in canonical portions of the Bible (such as Jude's epistle) much of Christian demonology relies on it. It is clearly the basis for the Book of Revelation. The notion of Satan as a fallen angel is based on the Book of Enoch.

 

[smaneck]

The Baha'i at the very least try to account for that by means of the concept of progressive revelations superseding their predecessors - but even they are relying upon scriptures that are roughly 150 years old at this point, written at a time that was vastly different from the reality that surrounds us now. And if I remember correctly, these scriptures also state something to the effect that a new revelation won't arrive for several hundred years to come, discounting anything that comes inbetween as fraudulent

It is true that we don't expect any new revelations direct from God prior to expiration of a thousand years (counted from our founding.) However, Baha'u'llah did provide the means for flexibility in the meantime. The Universal House of Justice, an elected body, is empowered to provide legislation and elucidations of Baha'i law in accordance with the needs of the time.