Victor said:
Oh sorry, I hope I didnt give you the impression that is where I was taking the similarity. I just used LDS because its something Im more familiar with.
Oh no, I didn't get that impression at all. We do have some striking similarities with LDS, but it's just a pet peeve of mine that purported scholars write as if the "only" way there could be similarities between religions is because Founder A "copied" from an earlier source. Sometimes there are similarities just because there are some universal truths in human existence, and no one plagiarized anything, you know? And other times, ideas spring up in multiple places, just because they are ideas whose time has come.
I summarized it in 3 points (correct me if Im wrong):
-must be the writings of these 3 figures
-Authoritative interpretation and defining is done by Shoghi Effendi and UHJ on non-theological matters.
-Prophet comes every thousand years with certain characteristics and in bad times.
Roughly every thousand years. Obviously, there was less than that between Jesus and Muhammad, and more between Muhammad and the Bab and Baha'u''llah. You can't exactly set your watch by it or anything.
(NOTE: differences in time periods should in no way be taken to imply that anyone's message was "better" or more "long lasting" than another's.)
This leads me to my next question. As you know, it is on theological issues that people either divide or unite. Bahai as I see it so far, seems to place more emphasis on non-theological practices as binding rather then on theological ones.
It's kind of hard to tell what people actually believe, but it's much easier to see how they behave. I'm not sure how you'd regulate beliefs unless there are actions behind them anyway.
People put their personal ideas out there all the time when they seem to be more personal than having anything to do with Baha'i Writings, but there's lots of room for that. Everyone, and that means everyone, needs to work on spiritual maturity anyway, and we all need time to discover what the Writings say, so there's great tolerance for that.
The main issue that comes up in that regard is in publishing. Just as the RCC has its "imprimatur," we have something similar. Since it's been explicitly written by Baha'u'llah who has the authority to interpret texts, it's not left to any Schmo to do that on their own.
If I, as a Baha'i, wanted to publish a book on the faith, I'd have to get it approved by the Universal House of Justice, or I'd risk having my Administrative Rights removed. That may sound punitive, especially to us libertarian American sorts, but the advantage is we are not swamped by hordes of books of personal opinions being paraded as what the faith genuinely teaches.
The "imprimatur" serves the same purpose to unify Catholics, yes?
Now, if any non-Baha'i wants to, they can publish anything they like, and it's really not our business. Our laws apply to us, because by becoming Baha'is we accepted them.
How free is the Bahai believer allowed to stretch his/her theological views before its going into deep waters? How does one know they are going into deep waters if most theological issues are defined?
The theological issues are *written*, but that doesn't at all imply that we actually understand them so completely. Baha'u'llah quotes a tradition found in a couple of other religions: "For every verse there are 70 meanings, only one of which is commonly known among the people."
We view the Creative Word as being so..."creative" that there's ample room for divergent understanding. In fact, I'd consider that one of the hallmarks of a real religion: the teachings (written or spoken) have great depth to them in many many ways.
And besides, as a Catholic I'm sure you've had the experience that the way you understood something about your own faith was different between when you were younger and when you were older?
The problems with different understandings only come in when egos are allowed to hold sway. We have some beliefs and practices that tend to dampen the effects of ego, though obviuosly they cannot eliminate that entirely.
FGS I think it was put a link to a website by a Baha'i (or so I assume) that contained some really...er...strange things like linking the Baha'i Faith with aliens or something. Well, that's certainly a new one on me, but I doubt anyone's said anything to the guy about it.
Am I completely off my rocker in my understanding? :cover:
No, not so far as I've read the thread yet.