Baha'i What's Wrong with Baha'i?

[com7fy8]

Hi, smaneck About if Paul's writings are completely infallible

when he tells women to be silent in church, maybe not so much.

I think there are even Bible claiming women who keep silent but while they have a problem with this; they feel this is imposed on them, but they go along with it in order to get along in their groups where ones say they must be silent. My personal opinion is Paul does not mean that women are not to talk, at all, but not to be talking in a way which distracts from whoever is supposed to have attention during a meeting. I have been in situations where someone would be talking and say something, then all of a sudden one women would turn to start talking in someone else's ear, or a number of women would start muttering, all at once. It seems this is usually done by women; but I understand this could be just a cultural thing, plus I have seen how men can be yakking when we are supposed to be having prayer. But the men can yak so we don't even start something, while certain women have caused distraction after something has gotten started. So, Paul could tell men to be silent, too, with this meaning, I would say. Men need to be an example of what goes for all of us. I need to be deeply silent, so my own noise in me is not getting in the way of me sensing and responding to God.

I understand God made a lady to be a guy's helper. This means helping us get God's correction!!

I think of how Abigail spoke up and stood up to David when he was getting ready to make a big mistake > 1 Samuel 25. He did not hit her with a "who are you a woman to be speaking?" thing. He glorified God that God had used her to correct him.

I benefit from what women say to me; so at times I even beg my lady friend to say something about whatever we are reading in the Bible. Because she says such caring and compassionate things, unlike my intellectual theo-logic stuff. I can be seemingly Bible smart but clearly love stupid; so I need her. So, it can get a little frustrating when I know she could say such good things, but she insists on listening . . . to me

But then she at some point does say something very good - - - and simple. I suspect she believes she is supposed to be silent. But at times she can't help to say something, but she understands it is not her but the Holy Spirit speaking . . . so she is silent but God is speaking Possibly, how a number of Bible believers understand Paul, is he means for a lady to be quiet and silent, but not the Holy Spirit through her.

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

And men need this, too. Whoever is a leader needs to take the lead in what the others are expected to do. So, if women need to be silent, this can mean how leaders need to be as the examples . . . not just always not talking, but deeply silent and submissive to God. And Christ lives and speaks > Galatians 2:20.

So, I consider that Paul means the disorderly and distracting speaking in a meeting. And this would go for men, too; but it might have been a situation in which only or mainly the women were starting things, maybe asking husbands questions during a message. I don't know if it's cultural or deeper, how I often see the lady turning to talk to the guy, not the other way around. I consider us all to be equal, but there seem to be things men specialize in doing and women do. But I think God wants us to get out of any stuff which is limited to so-called male or female identity, and grow in His love where men and women were created from.

So, @smaneck if I may be so personal to ask this > you are a lady, I understand, and you mention your issue with Paul telling women to be "silent". Do you as a woman take this personally? Do you feel this is somehow an attack on you because you are a woman? Or, do you Baha'i women feel that being female is not your real identity and so you do not take personally what people might say about women?

After all > Paul also does say that in Jesus "there is neither male nor female", in Galatians 3:28. So, in case we deeply feel that male or female is not our real identity, then why would we get worried about how people who are worldly discriminate about our physical gender which is in true reality not our identity?? If we are with God, we can't miss out on anything that really matters, after all. I suspect that ones can take Paul to be discriminating, but because they are sensitive about what they consider their identity to be; and in their oversensitivity they can be in a spirit witch has them misunderstand him. And this can keep them from understanding all he really means.

 

[smaneck]

So, @smaneck if I may be so personal to ask this > you are a lady, I understand, and you mention your issue with Paul telling women to be "silent". Do you as a woman take this personally? Do you feel this is somehow an attack on you because you are a woman? Or, do you Baha'i women feel that being female is not your real identity and so you do not take personally what people might say about women?

To be honest I don't think full equality of women and men was even possible in Paul's time anymore than it was possible in Muhammad's time. Woman back then typically married as soon after puberty as possible. Their husbands, on the average were seven years older because they needed to be far enough into manhood to
support a family. Is there any equality between a thirteen year old girl and a twenty-one year old man? Of course not! Then this woman would give birth to from four to seven children. Before the advent of modern medicine childbirth was extremely dangerous. Chances were, one of those babies would kill her. The average life expectancy of a woman
in pre-modern times was about thirty whereas a man could be expected to live into his fifties. No equality was possible under these circumstances where a woman dies before she even reaches full maturity. My problem is not so much with Paul but with those who think his views in gender relations are applicable today. Baha'is believe that there are two types of teachings within a religion, the spiritual essence which is the same and the social teachings which must change with the times.

After all > Paul also does say that in Jesus "there is neither male nor female", in Galatians 3:28.

However, Paul then turns around and says in 1 Corinthians:

"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

So, in case we deeply feel that male or female is not our real identity, then why would we get worried about how people who are worldly discriminate about our physical gender which is in true reality not our identity??

Hmm. My skin color is not my identity, therefore why should we get worried about all these Jim Crow laws that say we can't go to the same schools, drink from the same drinking fountains, enjoy the same beaches, etc.

I presume you get my point.

 

[smaneck]

Arthra, what is the Bahai Faith's view on Jesus' Crucifixion?

If the Baha'i Faith had rejected the crucifixion I never would have become a Baha'i.

If the latter, I take it that the Bahai Faith does not hold any salvific effect thereby? No salvation by the blood of the saviour? Could you enlighten me a bit about your views on the matter?

This is what Baha'u'llah said about the crucifixion:

"Know thou that when the Son . . . yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit"

However, I think you are asking more specifically where we stand on the doctrine of atonement. There is another verse which states:

"That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to
offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men. The
purpose of God, moreover, was to sacrifice him as a ransom for the sins and iniquities of all the peoples of the earth. This same honor, Jesus, the Son of
Mary, besought the one true God, exalted be His name and glory, to confer upon Him. For the same reason was Husayn offered up as a sacrifice by
Muhammad, the Apostle of God. No man can ever claim to have comprehended the nature of the hidden and manifold grace of God; none can fathom His all-embracing mercy. Such hath been the perversity of men and their transgressions, so grievous have been the trials that have afflicted the Prophets of God and their chosen ones, that all
mankind deserveth to be tormented and to perish. God's hidden and most loving providence, however, hath, through both visible and invisible agencies,
protected and will continue to protect it from the penalty of its wickedness. Ponder this in thine heart, that the truth may be revealed unto thee, and be
thou steadfast in His path." Gleanings 75-76.

There is a good article on this which is found here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/bhjesu.htm

 

[com7fy8]

After all > Paul also does say that in Jesus "there is neither male nor female", in Galatians 3:28.

However, Paul then turns around and says in 1 Corinthians:

"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

understood

What I consider true is that our real identity in Christ is with Jesus Himself. And in this all are equal as God's children. However, there can be outward inequality of position, among other things. Being the head of a body is not necessarily superior. What would become of the head if it became totally independent of its body? a dead head

With my lady friend, I keep finding how she has spiritual ministerial ability to make me alive in love which is gentle and humble and pure and all-loving with God. This gets my attention, to say the least. So, her details of how she does things, and things about her, do not matter much, by comparison. I think God made women with power to help their men by helping us get real with God in His own love. And so, a lady can be this essential.

But ones can be superior, by being more mature. This is a good inequality We need ones who are more than we are, so they can spread growth in God's love to us and be our examples. But less mature people in Jesus can also help ones more mature.

My skin color is not my identity, therefore why should we get worried about all these Jim Crow laws that say we can't go to the same schools, drink from the same drinking fountains, enjoy the same beaches, etc.

I presume you get my point.

understood

But I think in cases of skin color and beauty discrimination, the need is not only for financial and opportunity equality, but so evil people can not have power to put down others. If, for example, I were not good with finances, I could be better off as a slave of someone who is financially sound and is good to me. I could help him or her while benefitting from his or her expertise and management. But if I were to worry about independence and equality, I could do myself in . . . being my own slave and not a good master. Independence and equality can be a trick which gets people to be their own dictators and this in isolation from how others could help us.

Baha'u'llah

But I see Bahá'í quotes which say "Bahá'u'lláh", with those "´" marks over the a's. So, are the marks part of the proper names of certain Bahá'í people you quote, or are they pronunciation helps?

For the same reason was Husayn offered up as a sacrifice by
Muhammad, the Apostle of God.

I do not know if anyone ever told me that Muhammed sacrificed Husayn, who I suppose was a son of Muhammed.

The thing is that the LORD called off the sacrifice of Isaac > Genesis chapter 22 > Abraham was tested but he was stopped from going through with the sacrifice. So, I see how it is important to be in personal communication with God, to do what He tells us to do, but also to keep in communication so we obey however He might develop what He has us doing. What if Abraham had gone ahead and done only what he at first understood God told him to do??

What really mattered was how Abraham obeyed God, not only how much he was willing to sacrifice. We can get in an ego thing about how much we claim we would do for God. But we might not get into the loving which He wants, and the sacrifices which can come with forgiving.

No man can ever claim to have comprehended the nature of the hidden and manifold grace of God; none can fathom His all-embracing mercy.

Paul says God's ways are "past finding out", in Romans 11:33. Now . . . in my personal experience . . . this is turning out to mean how, in loving, the ways of our relating can be not what I can figure out, like with my lady friend . . . and with others. I always need to be ready for what I would not expect from someone, not to ever assume I have figured out anyone and therefore can predict what will help or please or help to correct someone. And, certainly, if I try to control someone, I can have quite a run-in with things not being how I supposed I had things figured out!!

 

[smaneck]

understood

What I consider true is that our real identity in Christ is with Jesus Himself. And in this all are equal as God's children. However, there can be outward inequality of position, among other things. Being the head of a body is not necessarily superior. What would become of the head if it became totally independent of its body? a dead head

If they were talking about the head in the context of the family only, you could perhaps make that argument. But a clear hierarchy is established here God-Christ-Man-Woman. And women are at the bottom.

But I think in cases of skin color and beauty discrimination, the need is not only for financial and opportunity equality, but so evil people can not have power to put down others. If, for example, I were not good with finances, I could be better off as a slave of someone who is financially sound and is good to me. I could help him or her while benefitting from his or her expertise and management. But if I were to worry about independence and equality, I could do myself in . . . being my own slave and not a good master. Independence and equality can be a trick which gets people to be their own dictators and this in isolation from how others could help us.

I'm not even go to touch this comment except to say, wow. I don't fault the Bible or the Qur'an for allowing slavery in the past, as it was preferable to other alternatives like killing POWs. But to say in this day and age, that some people are better off as slaves . . .

But I see Bahá'í quotes which say "Bahá'u'lláh", with those "´" marks over the a's. So, are the marks part of the proper names of certain Bahá'í people you quote, or are they pronunciation helps?

Those are diacriticals. It means the vowel is a long vowel rather than a short one, in this case an Alif.

I do not know if anyone ever told me that Muhammed sacrificed Husayn, who I suppose was a son of Muhammed.

He was Muhammad's grandson who is martyred by Muslims a generation after Muhammad's passing. This is seen a symbolic sacrifice on Muhammad's part.

The thing is that the LORD called off the sacrifice of Isaac > Genesis chapter 22 > Abraham was tested but he was stopped from going through with the sacrifice.

Yes, but the son is who Abraham attempted to sacrifice is still referred to as Qurban or sacrifice in the Islamic world.

So, I see how it is important to be in personal communication with God, to do what He tells us to do, but also to keep in communication so we obey however He might develop what He has us doing. What if Abraham had gone ahead and done only what he at first understood God told him to do??

You've just made a great argument for accepting progressive revelation!

 

[com7fy8]

But to say in this day and age, that some people are better off as slaves . . .

I am talking about someone who does not know how to love and is financially ruining one's life and family situation. The person could be better off as the property of someone who is a good example of how to love, to feed the person how to love, plus help the person to learn how to be responsible, then perhaps give the person freedom. I do not mean how worldly people in history have done slavery. I read that book Lunatic Express; do you know this book and if it is credible according to your historical expertise? That is not what I mean by slavery, in any case.

Those are diacriticals. It means the vowel is a long vowel rather than a short one, in this case an Alif.

To me, a "long a" or a "long i" would mean you pronounce Bahá-í as "bah-ay-eye". Is this what you mean? And the "h" is silent, I think I read.

And > I'm asking if those diacriticals are part of the proper spelling of the names. I notice how at times Bahá-í writers, here in Christian Forums, do not use diacriticals in spelling the names of your own specifically-Bahá-í prophets, but your quotes of their writings do have these marks.

You've just made a great argument for accepting progressive revelation!

I mean in a person's everyday life, we need to always keep in communication with God so we keep to whatever He means by what He tells us to do. But "progressive revelation" can mean that over the course of human history there needs to be additional revelation, after a group of people's scriptures have been received . . . that then they will need more.

Of course, ones Christian can seem to say the Bible is all of God's revelation. But then ones can write quite a number of books and give explanations which are not so stated in the Bible, then insist their additional ideas are right, even essential.

But what, for one example, do you find is an essential Bahá-í idea which is not already in the Bible? I mean something about how to become spiritually in real love, and how to relate with God, and how to love any and all people the way Jesus wants. I don't mean outward reform things like how views on slavery might have changed, for an example of what I don't mean. What have you discovered in Bahá-í writings which you find is spiritually and personally essential, but which is not already in the Bible?

 

[smaneck]

I am talking about someone who does not know how to love and is financially ruining one's life and family situation.

And who exactly is in the position to make that call?

The person could be better off as the property of someone who is a good example of how to love, to feed the person how to love, plus help the person to learn how to be responsible, then perhaps give the person freedom.

I submit that loving people would not enslave others, at least not in today's world.

I do not mean how worldly people in history have done slavery.

I'm more inclined to believe that there were slave-holders in history that were loving people, than I accept this as acceptable today.

To me, a "long a" or a "long i" would mean you pronounce Bahá-í as "bah-ay-eye". Is this what you mean? And the "h" is silent, I think I read.

The phonetic spelling is /bəˈhaɪ/ in order words Ba-high. That's in Persian. Arabic is slightly differently.

And > I'm asking if those diacriticals are part of the proper spelling of the names. I notice how at times Bahá-í writers, here in Christian Forums, do not use diacriticals in spelling the names of your own specifically-Bahá-í prophets, but your quotes of their writings do have these marks.

That's because the quotes are cut and pasted whereas it is not so easy to do them on a key board.

But "progressive revelation" can mean that over the course of human history there needs to be additional revelation, after a group of people's scriptures have been received . . . that then they will need more.

Of course, ones Christian can seem to say the Bible is all of God's revelation.

Sure. And Jews say the same of the Tanakh and Muslims the same about the Qur'an. We say that the Hand of God is never tied up.

But what, for one example, do you find is an essential Bahá-í idea which is not already in the Bible? I mean something about how to become spiritually in real love, and how to relate with God, and how to love any and all people the way Jesus wants. I don't mean outward reform things like how views on slavery might have changed, for an example of what I don't mean.

Wow. What you are excluding is that love taking concrete form in the real world. That is not an exclusion I can accept. See if I was only concerned with saving my own soul, I would have remained a Christian. It was because I wanted the world saved that I became a Baha'i. Which is more loving?

 

[Arthra]

Arthra, what is the Bahai Faith's view on Jesus' Crucifixion?
Does it hold the majority of Islam's view of a docetic crucifixion, where Jesus did not really die or someone else was in His place? Or does it accept He died on the cross?
If the latter, I take it that the Bahai Faith does not hold any salvific effect thereby? No salvation by the blood of the saviour? Could you enlighten me a bit about your views on the matter?

There is a commentary by Abdul-Baha on the Qur'anic verse Surih 4:157 :

'Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation of the verse is provided in a Tablet published in Star of the West, vol. 2, no. 7, p. 13, in which He has written:

"In regard to the verse, which is revealed in the Koran, that His Highness, Christ, was not killed and was not crucified, by this is meant the Reality of Christ. Although they crucified this elemental body, yet the merciful reality and the heavenly existence remain eternal and undying, and it was protected from the oppression and persecution of the enemies, for Christ is eternal and Everlasting. How can He die? This death and crucifixion was imposed on the physical body of Christ, and not upon the Spirit of Christ"


See also Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, pp. 85-6.

and with reference to martyrs also note in Surih 2:154

"And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not."

The verse focuses on the reality of the spirit of the martyr who was slain! The spirit is living.

 

[Dale]

According to answers.com, Bahais regard the Universal House of Justice as infallible.



Quote:

“The Baha'i Faith is the first religion to have its administrative outlined and defined by the Prophet-Founder in the revealed scripture. Baha'is regard the Universal House of Justice as infallible because Baha'u'llah stated that it would be. ”



http://www.answers.com/Q/Who_are_the_Baha'i_religious_leaders

 

[com7fy8]

But what, for one example, do you find is an essential Bahá-í idea which is not already in the Bible?

if I was only concerned with saving my own soul, I would have remained a Christian. It was because I wanted the world saved that I became a Baha'i.

But as a Christian I have understood how Jesus died in order to save any and all people. So, I don't get what you mean by claiming you needed to become a Bahá'í in order to save the whole world. Possibly, what you left included misunderstanding, since our Apostle Paul clearly says God >

"is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."

And in the Bible we also have how "first of all" we need to pray for any and all people because God "desires all men to be saved" > in 1 Timothy 2:1-4. This, then, is a "first of all" basic of Biblical Christianity.

I mean something about how to become spiritually in real love, and how to relate with God, and how to love any and all people the way Jesus wants. I don't mean outward reform things like how views on slavery might have changed, for an example of what I don't mean. What have you discovered in Bahá-í writings which you find is spiritually and personally essential, but which is not already in the Bible?

What you are excluding is that love taking concrete form in the real world. That is not an exclusion I can accept. See if I was only concerned with saving my own soul, I would have remained a Christian.

I offer I do not mean only saving my own soul. I am asking about the personal part of being saved, not meaning to exclude saving the whole world. And I understand that by becoming corrected by God, I become able to obey how He can have me laboring for all to be saved. Also, God wants us to become good examples (1 Peter 5:3) so we can help newer adopted children to grow and be healthy in Christ. So, the personal part is needed.

"'In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.'" (Genesis 22:18)

So, God desiring for all people to be saved is not something new, which is not already in the Bible.

So, still, if you please . . . what do you have in Bahá'í teaching, about personal salvation, which is not already in the Bible? Among other things, how do you teach that one becomes personally pleasing to our Father? And how do you say we become in love and how we relate with one another, which is not already given in the Bible?

And - - about being saved - - - how do you claim a person becomes saved, which Jesus has not taken care of, already, on the cross, and now through His resurrection? We have Romans 5:10; what do you have about being "saved by His life"? This is Bible basic, how "we shall be saved by His life." And the Bible gives all we have, about this. So, how do you claim to need more, in order to improve on or progress from all which we have in Christ and His resurrection and high priesthood?

By the way . . . I offer I do understand that one could get help of someone else, without becoming that person's slave. Maybe this was done by how the early church had all things common. They chose men full of God's Spirit and wisdom, to take care of managing that. But I understand that social slavery is not as much of a problem, as how any of us can be spiritual slaves . . . of worry, boredom, loneliness, depression, lust for different sorts of pleasures, anger, arguing, complaining, frustration, greed, and other anti-love things of "the power of Satan" (Acts 26:18). Satanic enslaving things are of "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (in Ephesians 2:2) > these things are cruel, anti-love, and work very hard in people's spirits and emotions and attention. And Jesus says He sent Paul, in order to turn people "from the power of Satan to God", in Acts 26:18, and Jesus says He gives us "rest for your souls", in Matthew 11:28-30.

And the Bible has all we already do have in scriptures, about how to learn from Jesus and find rest for our souls, including by becoming free of Satanic and enslaving things. He does want this, which is personal for each soul. So, what do you find you have about this, which is not already in the Bible and through Jesus who is God's own Son?

I have checked what a number of different groups claim, and they have not given me all that God through Jesus is giving me, and keeps giving me more and better than I already have been getting with God through Jesus. Muhammed doesn't even come close to Jesus and all Jesus says and has done, for one example. And I have been in group with Bahá'í people . . . or ones who claimed to be Bahá'í. I don't remember anything close to all God has shared with me through Jesus and the Bible and ones I know personally who have been examples to feed me how to become as a person in my nature and how to relate in love. And the little I have seen of Buddhism and Confucius is not as great as all Jesus says and has done. And I notice how non-Christian ones seem to me to be about how they get their own selves to change; they do not say much or anything about how to personally submit to our Heavenly Father and discover how He more and more "continually" (Isaiah 58:11) rules us in His own peace in our "hearts" > "in one body".

But yes I understand there is counterfeit or immature Christianity in which ones suppose they need to get their own selves to change and do things they are able to understand that God wants of them. But Philippians 2:13, to me, is very clear, how we need to constantly submit to God and how He works in all of our willing and our doing. And we are not "sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency of from God" > in 2 Corinthians 3:5.

In a number of writings of non-Christian and claiming-to-be-Christian groups, I see nothing about how only God has what it takes for us to change to become like His Son Jesus (Romans 8:29) and to personally submit to how He rules us in His own peace while He personally corrects each of us (Hebrews 12:4-11) to better than we can understand and correct our own selves to become - - - how we become in His love > Ephesians 3:19-21 > 1 John 4:17-18. But this is Bible basic, and we love others by seeking this for all, with hope for any and all people > love "hopes all things" (in 1 Corinthians 13:7).

So, if God is already doing this in His children, through His own Son Jesus, where are you saying anyone needs to progress to?

But yes there are counterfeits of real Christianity; and surely ones need to leave them; but the Bible testifies of all we can have in Christ.

 

[smaneck]

But as a Christian I have understood how Jesus died in order to save any and all people. So, I don't get what you mean by claiming you needed to become a Bahá'í in order to save the whole world.

The question then is saved from what? It seems to me that Christians are out to save individuals from a world which is otherwise going to hell whereas Baha'is are endeavoring to transform the world through action in the world.

Possibly, what you left included misunderstanding, since our Apostle Paul clearly says God >

"is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."

Uh, Paul didn't write Timothy or any of the pastoral letters. That is why I didn't include them when I complained about some of the things Paul said about women.

And in the Bible we also have how "first of all" we need to pray for any and all people because God "desires all men to be saved" > in 1 Timothy 2:1-4. This, then, is a "first of all" basic of Biblical Christianity.

We have very different ideas if what salvation is all about.

And I have been in group with Bahá'í people . . . or ones who claimed to be Bahá'í. I don't remember anything close to all God has shared with me through Jesus and the Bible and ones I know personally who have been examples to feed me how to become as a person in my nature and how to relate in love.

Obviously I experienced just the opposite, or I would not have left Christianity to become a Baha'i.

Let me explain what I believe about atonement and why I don't think regarding what Jesus did on the cross as a once-and-for all event works. Here is how I understand the Christian concept of atonement. The most common Christian concept of atonement and salvation is based on the arguments of Anselm of Canterbury who lived in the 11th
century. He had a neo-platonic notion of God wherein He was seen as possessing both perfect Justice and Mercy both of which must be satisfied. Because of His perfect Justice He cannot forgive sins without satisfaction. And because He is merciful the means had to provided for making that satisfaction. Does this sound familiar? Living in the
hierarchical world of early medieval Europe, Anselm felt the gravity of a sin or crime was measured by the station of the one against whom the crime or sin had been forgiven.

God being exalted above all stations, it stood to reason that a sin against Him was of infinite gravity with eternal repercussion's. It therefore incurred a debt which man could not hope to satisfy. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was for God Himself to make the satisfaction as a man.
My objection is that this formula seems to have more to do with 'fire insurance' than a relationship, except if one is seeing 'relationship' in cold, legalistic terms. It seems to me this is necessarily so, because when God's attributes are seen these kinds of static categories of Justice and Mercy we are trying to look at God in Greek
terms of essence rather than Hebrew sense of conception of God as a Living God, a Person. And we can only have a relationship with the
latter, not the former. Yes, the Baha'i Writings speak of ransoms and one doesn't necessarily have to die to make that sacrifice. Baha'u'llah Himself says:

"Fix your gaze upon Him Who is the Temple of God amongst men. He, in truth, hath offered up His life as a ransom for the redemption of the world. He, verily, is the All-Bountiful, the Gracious, the Most High.If any differences arise amongst you, behold Me standing before your face, and overlook the faults of one another for My name's sake and as a token of your love for My manifest and resplendent Cause." Gleanings, 314.

But while the Writings do speak of ransom but they also speak of repentance as being the sole prerequisite of forgiveness. We even have references to the kind of 'death-bed' conversions that some people make fun of Christianity for:

"He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner, at the hour of death, attained to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the celestial Concourse. And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of his soul's ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire." KI 194-95

He likewise says; "Should anyone be afflicted by a sin, it behoveth him to repent thereof and return unto his Lord. He, verily, granteth forgiveness unto whomsoever He willeth, and none may question that which it pleaseth Him to ordain."

Repentance doesn't mean simply feeling sorry for one sins, it means turning towards God. One story that is told about Muslim mystic Rabi'a is that one day she came upon Hasan al-Basra (an earlier Muslim mystic) who was weeping and wailing over his sins, saying what a wretched man he was. Rabi'a said, "Yes, you are. Because had you truly turned towards God you would be looking at Him and not noticing your own sins."

If repentance is the only prerequisite for forgiveness why then does Baha'u'llah speak of 'ransoms'? Perhaps it is because only these kinds of sacrifices which make true repentance, true focusing on God out of love possible. This is what another medieval Christian theologian, Peter of Abelard argued. He held that the Crucifixion was necessary to forgive men's sin not because it was required on God's part but because only such a dramatic expression of God's love would enable people to repent and cause them to turn towards Him.

It strikes me that this form of atonement, unlike Anselm's formulation is relational. But it is also something which could not be done once and never again as in Christianity. If it is indeed grounded in God's determination to reach us, instead of satisfying some abstract requirements of the Divine Essence, then it would happen again and again as Baha'u'llah seems to affirm.

I think there is a great danger in seeing God as static, understandable by human categories like justice and mercy as Anselm liked to do. The God of Abraham was a Living God, a Person and like all persons (and unlike pure essences) He had a Will, one like all wills was subject to change on occasion. It seems to me this attempt to make God fit our mental conceptions, to put Him into a predictable box is in the end, a form of idolatry. The Living God is not so predictable. He fulfills prophecies in ways we don't expect, and at times appears to fulfill them not at all.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The question then is saved from what? It seems to me that Christians are out to save individuals from a world which is otherwise going to hell whereas Baha'is are endeavoring to transform the world through action in the world.



Uh, Paul didn't write Timothy or any of the pastoral letters. That is why I didn't include them when I complained about some of the things Paul said about women.



We have very different ideas if what salvation is all about.



Obviously I experienced just the opposite, or I would not have left Christianity to become a Baha'i.

Let me explain what I believe about atonement and why I don't think regarding what Jesus did on the cross as a once-and-for all event works. Here is how I understand the Christian concept of atonement. The most common Christian concept of atonement and salvation is based on the arguments of Anselm of Canterbury who lived in the 11th
century. He had a neo-platonic notion of God wherein He was seen as possessing both perfect Justice and Mercy both of which must be satisfied. Because of His perfect Justice He cannot forgive sins without satisfaction. And because He is merciful the means had to provided for making that satisfaction. Does this sound familiar? Living in the
hierarchical world of early medieval Europe, Anselm felt the gravity of a sin or crime was measured by the station of the one against whom the crime or sin had been forgiven.

God being exalted above all stations, it stood to reason that a sin against Him was of infinite gravity with eternal repercussion's. It therefore incurred a debt which man could not hope to satisfy. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was for God Himself to make the satisfaction as a man.
My objection is that this formula seems to have more to do with 'fire insurance' than a relationship, except if one is seeing 'relationship' in cold, legalistic terms. It seems to me this is necessarily so, because when God's attributes are seen these kinds of static categories of Justice and Mercy we are trying to look at God in Greek
terms of essence rather than Hebrew sense of conception of God as a Living God, a Person. And we can only have a relationship with the
latter, not the former. Yes, the Baha'i Writings speak of ransoms and one doesn't necessarily have to die to make that sacrifice. Baha'u'llah Himself says:

"Fix your gaze upon Him Who is the Temple of God amongst men. He, in truth, hath offered up His life as a ransom for the redemption of the world. He, verily, is the All-Bountiful, the Gracious, the Most High.If any differences arise amongst you, behold Me standing before your face, and overlook the faults of one another for My name's sake and as a token of your love for My manifest and resplendent Cause." Gleanings, 314.

But while the Writings do speak of ransom but they also speak of repentance as being the sole prerequisite of forgiveness. We even have references to the kind of 'death-bed' conversions that some people make fun of Christianity for:

"He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner, at the hour of death, attained to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the celestial Concourse. And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of his soul's ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire." KI 194-95

He likewise says; "Should anyone be afflicted by a sin, it behoveth him to repent thereof and return unto his Lord. He, verily, granteth forgiveness unto whomsoever He willeth, and none may question that which it pleaseth Him to ordain."

Repentance doesn't mean simply feeling sorry for one sins, it means turning towards God. One story that is told about Muslim mystic Rabi'a is that one day she came upon Hasan al-Basra (an earlier Muslim mystic) who was weeping and wailing over his sins, saying what a wretched man he was. Rabi'a said, "Yes, you are. Because had you truly turned towards God you would be looking at Him and not noticing your own sins."

If repentance is the only prerequisite for forgiveness why then does Baha'u'llah speak of 'ransoms'? Perhaps it is because only these kinds of sacrifices which make true repentance, true focusing on God out of love possible. This is what another medieval Christian theologian, Peter of Abelard argued. He held that the Crucifixion was necessary to forgive men's sin not because it was required on God's part but because only such a dramatic expression of God's love would enable people to repent and cause them to turn towards Him.

It strikes me that this form of atonement, unlike Anselm's formulation is relational. But it is also something which could not be done once and never again as in Christianity. If it is indeed grounded in God's determination to reach us, instead of satisfying some abstract requirements of the Divine Essence, then it would happen again and again as Baha'u'llah seems to affirm.

I think there is a great danger in seeing God as static, understandable by human categories like justice and mercy as Anselm liked to do. The God of Abraham was a Living God, a Person and like all persons (and unlike pure essences) He had a Will, one like all wills was subject to change on occasion. It seems to me this attempt to make God fit our mental conceptions, to put Him into a predictable box is in the end, a form of idolatry. The Living God is not so predictable. He fulfills prophecies in ways we don't expect, and at times appears to fulfill them not at all.

First time I heard that the Satisfaction theory of Atonement is the most common. I would have said the Scapegoat or Christus Victor are.
The thing is that there are many theories of Atonement, like Moral Influence, Penal Substitution, Ransom etc. but all of them can be the reason it works, they aren't mutually exclusive. Probably we don't fully grasp how the Atonement occurred, but that doesn't mean we aren't saved in practice by Christ's Crucifixion even if we quibble on its theory.
I understand where you are coming from, but Christianity does not consist solely of Scholasticism.

 

[Noxot]

it is from the center of a thing that we might draw the conclusion if there be a problem or not thus this must be reduced down to the level of the soul.

 

[light upon light]

You cannot apply the mirror analogy there, unfortunately as Jesus says elsewhere that "before Abraham was, I AM" thus equating himself directly to the God who spoke to Moses from the burning bush.

Baha'is would say that God spoke through Jesus, just as He spoke through the burning bush.

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. " - John 4:24

 

[smaneck]

Baha'is would say that God spoke through Jesus, just as He spoke through the burning bush.

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. " - John 4:24

More than that, Baha'is believe in the pre-existence of the Manifestation. In their universal dimension They are all the Word through which all else was made.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Baha'is would say that God spoke through Jesus, just as He spoke through the burning bush.

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. " - John 4:24

John 8:54-59:
Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory means nothing. The One who glorifies Me is My Father, of whom you say ‘He is our God.’ You do not know Him, but I know Him. If I said I did not know Him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know Him, and I keep His word. Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see My day. He saw it and was glad.”…Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?"
"Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, before Abraham was born, I am!”
At this, they picked up stones to throw at Him

The Jews are asking Jesus about himself, how He could have seen Abraham, to which He replies that I AM equating himself to the Tetragrammaton YHWH explicitly. He is also referring to how He knows God. This passage does not allow mirror analogies, or 'talking through Jesus' stances, as that I Am is emphatic and the people He is talking to realise this and start to gather stones to stone Him for blasphemy. It is clearly Jesus talking as the earlier verses show and not God through Jesus, but also Jesus in essence says He is that very God.

Exodus 3: 4-14
4 When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”
And Moses said, “Here I am.
5 “Do not come any closer", God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.' Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
7 The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey, the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 9 And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. 10 So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt.”
11 But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?”
12 And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain."
13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name? Then what shall I tell them?”
14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

This explicitly states that God is talking and He calls Himself I AM. The two passages are not similar in the way it is presented nor the implied speaker, as you can plainly see. The former shows Jesus equating Himself to God while speaking as Jesus and the later clearly says it is God speaking through the bush.

More than that, Baha'is believe in the pre-existence of the Manifestation. In their universal dimension They are all the Word through which all else was made.

Yes, earlier in the thread I asked about the pre-existence of the Manifestations, but could not get a clear answer. Maybe you can help me. Arthra quoted a piece that equated them to the Logos (the Word). Now tell me, are all Manifestations considered a part of one Logos or are there thought to be multiple Logoi? If the latter, do all Manifestations exist since time immemorial, including future manifestations, or do they have a finite beginning? How can they then be the Logos if it is the divine animating principle through which creation occurs, as the word implies, if there are multiple logoi and they are not eternal?
If the former, does that not mean that all Manifestations are essentially the same being, but how does it then correspond to God if we adopt the mirror analogy?

 

[smaneck]

Yes, earlier in the thread I asked about the pre-existence of the Manifestations, but could not get a clear answer. Maybe you can help me. Arthra quoted a piece that equated them to the Logos (the Word). Now tell me, are all Manifestations considered a part of one Logos or are there thought to be multiple Logoi?

They all participate in the same Logos.

If the former, does that not mean that all Manifestations are essentially the same being, but how does it then correspond to God if we adopt the mirror analogy?

My understanding is that each Manifestation has three different natures. There is the human nature which They share with all of us, but there is also the divine nature by which the Manifestation knows and reveals the Divine Will, then there is the Divine Logos by which all else is created. It is only in this Third Station that all the Manifestations are one. In their human station they are separate. The third nature is definitely pre-existent and I'm pretty sure the second nature is as well, but not the human nature.

I'm not sure what the last part of your question is asking.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

They all participate in the same Logos.



My understanding is that each Manifestation has three different natures. There is the human nature which They share with all of us, but there is also the divine nature by which the Manifestation knows and reveals the Divine Will, then there is the Divine Logos by which all else is created. It is only in this Third Station that all the Manifestations are one. In their human station they are separate. The third nature is definitely pre-existent and I'm pretty sure the second nature is as well, but not the human nature.

I'm not sure what the last part of your question is asking.

Thank you. No, you answered what I wanted to know quite adequately. So, I take it the Manifestations act not unlike the Stoic Logos or the Sufi conception derived from it, as an active reason pervading the universe personified and therefore an intermediary between God and Creation.

This is a bit different from the Christian conception of the Logos as self-revelation and Redemption, Ultimate Reality as a Person of the Trinity who is distinguishable from the Father in theory, but that they are One, a Hypostatic Union. To Christians it describes a facet of God as a creative entity, not a mediating link to the Divine, but the Divine itself.

 

[smaneck]

Thank you. No, you answered what I wanted to know quite adequately. So, I take it the Manifestations act not unlike the Stoic Logos or the Sufi conception derived from it, as an active reason pervading the universe personified and therefore an intermediary between God and Creation.

I would also think of it as God's active principle. In the Qur'an for instance. God says "BE" [lit. KuN] and it is. One of our prayers describes the Manifestation as "He through whom the letters B and E [lit. Kaf and Nun] have been joined and knit together.

This is a bit different from the Christian conception of the Logos as self-revelation and Redemption, Ultimate Reality as a Person of the Trinity who is distinguishable from the Father in theory, but that they are One, a Hypostatic Union. To Christians it describes a facet of God as a creative entity, not a mediating link to the Divine, but the Divine itself.

We would not go so far as identify the Manifestation with God in His Essence, He is simply all we can understand about God humanly speaking. But yes, that makes Him God's self-revelation. After describing the exalted station of the Manifestations of God, Shoghi Effendi warns us:

"Let no one meditating, in the light of the afore-quoted passages, on the nature of the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, mistake its character or misconstrue the intent of its Author. The divinity attributed to so great a Being and the complete incarnation of the names and attributes of God in so exalted a Person should, under no circumstances, be misconceived or misinterpreted. The human temple that has been made the vehicle of so overpowering a Revelation must, if we be faithful to the tenets of our Faith, ever remain entirely distinguished from that “innermost Spirit of Spirits” and “eternal Essence of Essences”—that invisible yet rational God Who, however much we extol the divinity of His Manifestations on earth, can in no wise incarnate His infinite, His unknowable, His incorruptible and all-embracing Reality in the concrete and limited frame of a mortal being. Indeed, the God Who could so incarnate His own reality would, in the light of the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, cease immediately to be God. So crude and fantastic a theory of Divine incarnation is as removed from, and incompatible with, the essentials of Bahá’í belief as are the no less inadmissible pantheistic and anthropomorphic conceptions of God both of which the utterances of Bahá’u’lláh emphatically repudiate and the fallacy of which they expose."

I realize this is incompatible with Christianity as defined by the Nicean Creed but I don't think it is incompatible with the Bible. To put it in Latin theological terms the Manifestation is the Deus Revelatus, but not the Deus Absconditus.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I realize this is incompatible with Christianity as defined by the Nicean Creed but I don't think it is incompatible with the Bible.

I however do think it is incompatible with the Bible as well, as Jesus clearly claims to be YHWH. But of course, I am a Nicaean Christian so I would think this and there are others who interpret the texts differently.

It is interesting to see Baha'u'llah repudiating pantheism as well. That quote of Shoghi Effendi clearly shows the incompatibility of the Bahai Faith and Christianity though.