Homosexuality and religious.

[CG Didymus]

All Moslems? You don't think much of Moslems, so you. Anyway, yes, unity in diversity, but if someone has a view that precludes unity that is not unity in diversity.

Did I have to repeat the word "fundamentalist"? But you add "all"? So, let's try again. Conservative, Fundamentalist Christians and Conservative, Fundamentalist Moslems are probably not going to go along with Baha'is and be part of the Baha'i "unity in diversity" thing. Liberal Christians and liberal Moslems might. But even some of them might disagree with the Baha'i law forbidding homosexuality and not allowing them to marry and not want to be included with any "unity" that includes a religion that has such a law.

 

[CG Didymus]

ah, no problem. It is clear what God wanted, and it is clear how Moses deviated from it. All that's needed is a good translation and sticking to the text.

7 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:

8 "Take the staff and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and speak to the rock in their presence so that it will give forth its water. You shall bring forth water for them from the rock and give the congregation and their livestock to drink."

9 Moses took the staff from before the Lord as He had commanded him.

10 Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation in front of the rock, and he said to them, "Now listen, you rebels, can we draw water for you from this rock?"

11 Moses raised his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, when an abundance of water gushed forth, and the congregation and their livestock drank.

12 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly to the Land which I have given them.
​

OK, so, God tells Moses

1. take the staff
2. speak to the rock
3. bring forth water

Instead Moses

1. takes the staff
2. speaks to the people
3. claims to bring water using his own power
4. hits the rock twice

So you can see, directly from the text, that Moses didn't follow God's instructions. Per verse 12, the specific infraction which resulted in prohibiting him from entering the Holy Land was "not sanctifying God" which was when Moses spoke to the assembly "can WE bring water from this rock". That was the major fault, saying 'WE'.

There you go, pretty simple. Now, I'll note that there are at least 7 different interpretations that sages have come up with regarding this story. Each one posits different reasons for Moses' ban from the Holy Land. What I've relayed does not require interpretation, so it avoids the accusation "you're clinging to the interpretations of clergy".

OK, now on to the really interesting part of the discussion: How do we have confidence that this "conversation" was recorded accurately? Here are my reasons:

1) Over the past 3000 years, if there was deviation in the story, I would expect this to be reflected in multiple versions of the Torah. But there aren't different versions, the method employed for maintaining the accuracy, word-by-word, is amazing. And this has resulted in the ancient text being maintained in a single form throughout all these years.

2) Let's assume that the story has been corrupted, or changed, or there were multiple accounts of the story. It doesn't make sense to choose Deuteronomy 3 over Numbers 20 and Deuteronomy 32. It's a simple 2 to 1 comparisson. There's two matching explanations included in 2 different books, versus, 1 explanation in one book. Two of the explanations come from God, one from a prophet. Even if the author was unsure which parts of the story were correct and included them both, that means that neither explanation should be trusted ( not one chosen above the other ). Even if there were multiple authors, the two matching explanations corroborate each other.

3) There's another example of Moses' human failings in Exodus 4 immediately following the episode at the burning bush:

24 Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 So Zipporah took a sharp stone and severed her son's foreskin and cast it to his feet, and she said, "For you are a bridegroom of blood to me." 26 So He released him. Then she said, "A bridegroom of blood concerning the circumcision."​

Now, there's not a lot to go on here in the text. But it does say explicitly that the "Lord sought to put him to death". So clearly Moses must have done something wrong. Since Moses was not put to death, and the only action taken mentioned in the story is a circumcision, it seems like the story is telling us, Moses had not circumsised his son in spite of the law ( God's will ) to do so. And that's a mistake, so here like in the story at the waters of meribah, we have Moses showing fallibility.

If we include this story with the other, now Moses' human flawed nature is reflected in 3 of the 5 books of Moses. And none of this is coming from interpretation. It's strictly from the text.

Does the Baha'i concept of a "manifestation" fit into Jewish beliefs? Here's a wordy description of a manifestation...

In Bahá'u'lláh's Tablet of the Manifestation ('Akka period), He delineates the station of the manifestation of God.[80] He begins by describing a metaphysical entity termed the manifestation (az-zuhur), which seems to be broadly similar to the Word of God or Logos that Bahá'u'lláh discussed in The Tablet of Wisdom. Just as the Word of God was there described as neither nature nor substance, in this tablet Bahá'u' lláh emphasizes that the manifestation is not composed of the four elements of classical physics. Nor, He states, is the manifestation made up of the four natures. The essence of the manifestation is sanctified above likeness and cannot be known through anything else, being unique above the manifestations of createdness (i.e. contingent beings). Indeed, no creature can even claim to exist in the presence of the manifestation. All things were created by the speech (qawl) of the manifestation, but the latter remains unknowable to them in its inmost reality.

Bahá'u'lláh describes the manifestation as the mystery of divinity and the essence of self-subsistence, which is to say, it is a manifestation of these divine attributes. Nevertheless, the manifestation 'seats itself' upon the 'throne' of a human body. This metaphysical entity appears as a human being upon the planet earth. Bahá'u'lláh seems to say that there is a difference between the bodies of ordinary human beings and the human temple of the manifestation. The difference, however, is one of quality and not of kind. The body which the manifestation inhabits is composed of earthly elements just as are the bodies of ordinary human beings, but Bahá'u'lláh goes on to say that the body of the manifestation is to ordinary human bodies as diamond is to stones. Were it not for the bodies of the manifestations of God. Bahá'u'lláh says, the bodies of ordinary human beings would not have been created.
​

Baha'is claim that the spiritual laws don't change, only the social laws, but there sure seems to be a lot of spiritual teachings that change.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yeah, I think prophecies are generally a dead end. The contradiction for me is: on the one hand, per Baha'i, the text they're quoting from has been corrupted over time, but on the other hand here's a verse which literally corresponds to my manifestation. If it was corrupt then the verse in question can't be expected to be correct.

This is a wrong use of corruption in the Baha'i approach, as the recorded word remains and this is not disputed in any way shape or form.

Mostly it is the interpretation which is being talked about in the Writings of Baha’u’llah, and that is the issue being discussed, that is why prophecy is so hotly debated. Who has authority of interpretation! Also in part it is about the total disregard of some scriptures, as if the outward meaning was followed, then this would compromise the current life styles of people. (Better to quote, as my own words are not as clear)

Spoiler: 1st Quote

Were they to be questioned concerning those signs that must needs herald the revelation and rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation, to which We have already referred, none of which 84 have been literally fulfilled, and were it to be said to them: “Wherefore have ye rejected the claims advanced by Christians and the peoples of other faiths and regard them as infidels,” knowing not what answer to give, they will reply: “These Books have been corrupted and are not, and never have been, of God.” Reflect: the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God. A similar verse hath been also revealed in the Qur’án, were ye of them that comprehend. Verily I say, throughout all this period they have utterly failed to comprehend what is meant by corrupting the text...............Great God! Notwithstanding their acceptance of the truth of this tradition, these divines who are still doubtful of, and dispute about, the theological obscurities of their faith, yet claim to be the exponents of the subtleties of the law of God, and the expounders of the essential mysteries of His holy Word. They confidently assert that such traditions as indicate the advent of the expected Qá’im have not yet been fulfilled, whilst they themselves have failed to inhale the fragrance of the meaning of these traditions, and are still oblivious of the fact that all the signs foretold have come to pass, that the way of God’s holy Cause hath been revealed, and the concourse of the faithful, swift as lightning, are, even now, passing upon that way, whilst these foolish divines wait expecting to witness the signs foretold. Say, O ye foolish ones! Wait ye even as those before you are waiting!...."

Really this whole section

Spoiler: long Quote

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

With the Quran, we are assured the Word is accurate. With the Bible we have been told it is a sure spiritual guide, but not necessarily word for word accurate.

Also it is a mainly literal interpretation that Baha'u'llah also offers as a great veil between religions.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

If you don't mind, I'd like to remind you the context that began the discussion of the 10 commandments. The claim was made: "denying one manifestation denies them all". This can't be true if the spiritual messages of two manifestations conflict. Denying one could be resulting from accepting the other. That means denying one does not automatically deny them all. In this case we have a conflict between the spiritual message of Moses ( don't include other divine beings in worship ) and Baha'u'llah ( per the infallible Abdul'Baha, it is OK to include other divine beings in worship ).

The belief that some Christians hold that the only way to be saved and have their sins forgiven is by trust and belief in Jesus. What includes believing that they inherited sin or a sin nature from Adam and Jesus paid the penalty for all sins by dying on the cross. Most of us know the details of all of this, and how it makes Jesus special and above everybody else. But that is in conflict with all the other people Baha'is call manifestations.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"Conspiracy theories"?

WHY are there ERRORS in the King James Version Bible?
You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was published in 1611 A.D.

For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the official text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.

Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.

The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much WORSE!
​

And this...

The New Testament of the KJV is based on the Greek text of the New Testament produced by Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536). He used several Greek manuscripts, none of which contained the entire New Testament or were earlier than the twelfth century. Moreover, they were all from one text type, all from the same geographical area. Today, we know so much more about the original manuscripts of Scripture than was known in 1611.

The problem becomes evident when we see that the King James Version actually adds verses of Scripture, not in the original texts of the Bible.

As for the Old Testament, the KJV is based on the Masoretic Text (the traditional text of Rabbinic Judaism) which is certainly the best available. However, in 1896 many Hebrew texts were found in the Cairo Genizah (a burial or storage place for Scripture in an ancient Egyptian synagogue). Also, the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, biblical texts and fragments found at a place called Qumran in the Judean wilderness, has provided a deeper understanding of the original Hebrew text.
​

Why do you believe saying these things are "conspiracy theories"?

Because it is a smoke screen. Most likely in quite a few cases, translation has contained interpretation, especially in the favour of Christain doctrine, but I always consider that many genuine people over many years have tried to produce an accurate record of what God has given in the past.

Why should I insult them?

The Bible is a sure spiritual guide, the key is we have to consider that the Quran and Baha'i Writings are given by God, and those scriptures allow us to view the Bible, as written, in the same light of God.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Yeah, I think prophecies are generally a dead end. The contradiction for me is: on the one hand, per Baha'i, the text they're quoting from has been corrupted over time, but on the other hand here's a verse which literally corresponds to my manifestation. If it was corrupt then the verse in question can't be expected to be correct.

I bring up the virgin birth story a lot, because I think the writer of Matthew took the verse out of Isaiah and several other Bible verses out of context and made them into prophecies about Jesus. So, I really question whether or this was a real prophecy. I side with the Jews on this. The context is not about the Messiah. It is about two enemy kings that will be dead by the time a certain boy reaches a certain age.

But that doesn't matter to Christians. It is one of their most cherished stories. But why do Baha'is need to accept the virgin birth story? And therefore, accept that the writer of Matthew was correct, that the verse in Isaiah is about Jesus. The Baha'is could have easily said what they said about the resurrection... that it was symbolic and not literal. But they didn't. They support the belief that Jesus was born from a virgin.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Baha'is claim that the spiritual laws don't change, only the social laws, but there sure seems to be a lot of spiritual teachings that change.

Progressive Revelation CG. The foundations of all learning are given in early learning and then expanded upon as we mature.

Consider the Revelation of just two letters B and E. They contain all creation, all knowledge.

In the early years we are taught how to recognise and pronounce letters, then how they can construct larger words and sentences and go on to write a book of meaning. With this foundation we can consider much deeper meaning.

Regards Tony

 

[dybmh]

Does the Baha'i concept of a "manifestation" fit into Jewish beliefs?

So, it's controversial. The Jewish nation allows for a wide range of beliefs. In Jewish history, communities developed ideas about their saintly leaders which bordered on heresy. When that happened they were called out on it. I think theres a list on wikipedia somewhere. Now, I'm not sure that these righteous individuals are 100% congruent with the Baha'i manifestation, but I can tell you that their disciples thought that they were sinless.

Because of this, I can't say that the manifestation doesn't fit. But I can say for many many Jews, it is too close to idol worship.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is a wrong use of corruption in the Baha'i approach, as the recorded word remains and this is not disputed in any way shape or form.

Not disputed? The recorded word says Isaac, Baha'is say Ishmael, then add "does it really matter"? The recorded word has Jesus coming back to life, Baha'is say no, that dead people don't come back to life after three days. So, Baha'is say that the story of the resurrection must be symbolic.

With the Bible we have been told it is a sure spiritual guide, but not necessarily word for word accurate.

But wait, if it's not word for word accurate, then which words? And those inaccurate words should be disputed.

 

[CG Didymus]

Progressive Revelation CG. The foundations of all learning are given in early learning and then expanded upon as we mature.

Consider the Revelation of just two letters B and E. They contain all creation, all knowledge.

In the early years we are taught how to recognise and pronounce letters, then how they can construct larger words and sentences and go on to write a book of meaning. With this foundation we can consider much deeper meaning.

Regards Tony

Or, every people, every culture invented their religion and their Gods. Baha'is accept some of them as being real and true.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But wait, if it's not word for word accurate, they which words? And those inaccurate words should be disputed.

I always consider what Abdul'baha says on the Bible.

INSCRIPTION IN THE OLD BIBLE
Written by Abdul Baha in Persian

THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God, Abdul Baha Abbas.

In the end, the discussions on this can only happen with different mindsets, it is pointless otherwise.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Or, every people, every culture invented their religion and their Gods. Baha'is accept some of them as being real and true.

Something you get to decide upon CG.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

So, it's controversial. The Jewish nation allows for a wide range of beliefs. In Jewish history, communities developed ideas about their saintly leaders which bordered on heresy. When that happened they were called out on it. I think theres a list on wikipedia somewhere. Now, I'm not sure that these righteous individuals are 100% congruent with the Baha'i manifestation, but I can tell you that their disciples thought that they were sinless.

Because of this, I can't say that the manifestation doesn't fit. But I can say for many many Jews, it is too close to idol worship.

Manifestations I think they say have always been. And they at some point in time their divine half becomes human. That they are perfect reflections of God. Like a perfectly polished mirror reflecting the Sun. For sure they say Abraham and Moses were manifestations and not ordinary humans. Here's another quote...

"Is the Divine Manifestation, God? Yes, and yet not in Essence. A Divine Manifestation is as a mirror reflecting the light of the Sun. The light is the same and yet the mirror is not the Sun. All the Manifestations of God bring the same Light; they only differ in degree, not in reality. The Truth is one. The light is the same though the lamps may be different; we must look at the Light not at the Lamp. If we accept the Light in one, we must accept the Light in all; all agree, because all are the same."[10]
"These sanctified Mirrors...are, one and all, the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty. The beauty of their countenance is but a reflection of His image, and their revelation a sign of His deathless glory."

Bahá’u’lláh referred to several historical figures as Manifestations. They include Adam, Noah, Zoroaster, Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. The Báb, as well as Himself, were included in this definition. Thus religious history is interpreted as a series of dispensations, where each Manifestation brings a somewhat broader and more advanced revelation, suited for the time and place in which it was expressed.
​

 

[CG Didymus]

Something you get to decide upon CG.

Regards Tony

Or something worth investigating.

 

[dybmh]

per Baha'i, the text they're quoting from has been corrupted over time

This is a wrong use of corruption in the Baha'i approach. ... With the Bible we have been told it is a sure spiritual guide, but not necessarily word for word accurate.

OK. I read the quotes you brought, thank you for that.

But really this doesn't change what I said. If the text you're quoting from may not be word for word accurate, then it doesn't make sense to lift up a verse and claim it's irrefutably fulfilled.

 

[CG Didymus]

In the end, the discussions on this can only happen with different mindsets, it is pointless otherwise.

That newer translations aren't as good as the KJV? Okay, I agree. The KJV is perfect. Now let's discuss why it is perfect, and why other translations aren't?

 

[dybmh]

Because it is a smoke screen. Most likely in quite a few cases, translation has contained interpretation

Respectfully, I object. Without knowledge of the language a translation error where interpretation is mixed in is impossible to identify.

If an alternate interpretation is brought by your faith, then that is not correcting a translation problem, it's simply bringing a new interpretation of its own. And the adherents are choosing the later interpretation because they favor the later prophet.

If a verse from the Bible is brought, and a translation error is effecting the conclusion drawn from it, then one should respect the better translation, not ignore it because it doesn't agree with the conclusion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

OK. I read the quotes you brought, thank you for that.

But really this doesn't change what I said. If the text you're quoting from may not be word for word accurate, then it doesn't make sense to lift up a verse and claim it's irrefutably fulfilled.

Thank you for your response. In the end I hope you can agree, it is not our claim. Baha'u'llah has said he is the fulfilment and that fulfilment is found in what He has offered from G_d.

I draw from and only share what I have found in those writings.

If it is my own interpretation I will offer it is. The issue is I have been discouraged from posting the quotes that are the reference of my replies.

Baha'u'llah offered that this has always been a cause of dispute and said we should know the Writings so well that we offer them in the pure form.

So a lot we say, is not really our thoughts, they are a watered down explanation of what Baha'u'llah offered as such thus is where error begins.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That newer translations aren't as good as the KJV? Okay, I agree. The KJV is perfect. Now let's discuss why it is perfect, and why other translations aren't?

Where did you get that from? I do not think that, nor did I say that.

Shoghi Effendi used the KJV as it contained the English He saw was good for translation. I remember watching a show about the process of translation, it was a mighty effort to get it right, but let's face it, do men always get everything right!

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Respectfully, I object. Without knowledge of the language a translation error where interpretation is mixed in is impossible to identify.

If an alternate interpretation is brought by your faith, then that is not correcting a translation problem, it's simply bringing a new interpretation of its own. And the adherents are choosing the later interpretation because they favor the later prophet.

If a verse from the Bible is brought, and a translation error is effecting the conclusion drawn from it, then one should respect the better translation, not ignore it because it doesn't agree with the conclusion.

Look I agree 100% translations are difficult as it does require a level of interpretation and much error can result. This is an issue that needs to be addressed for any future translations of the Baha'i Writings.

I am just overly frustrated that such mighty topics get drawn down to such debatable levels where we learn very little, this debate about translations has dogged humanity for centuries and caused conflicts.

That is why I like what Abdul'baha offered, the spiritual capacity of all those books is in no way compromised. We just need to discuss the Spirit behind the Words.

Regards Tony