He was referring to the persecution of his disciples. A bit out of context really to support the need for progressive revelation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is progressive revelation believable?
- Thread starter od19g6
- Start date
He was referring to the persecution of his disciples. A bit out of context really to support the need for progressive revelation.
Certainly sounds that way to me, especially as someone whose religions of affiliation don't have prophets/messiahs/messengers. The notion that only some special few have relationships with the gods is silly for polytheists. I get that there's a strong undercurrent in Abrahamic traditions (of which Baha'i is a part) for middlepersons and intermediaries between their one-god and humans, but in polytheism, we get to know our gods directly without the intermediaries. We don't need nor want the revelations of their one-god.
Your 'we' is the same issue with all the different religions and belief systems to justify their own belief 'ONLY'. There are two views of the progressive view of the nature of the different cultures and peoples of the history of humanity. One is Progressive Revelation and the other is the Naturalist view of the progressive nature of the evolution of humanity. The other alternative claim of justifying ones own religion or belief system over and exclusion of others if the least likely alternative.
The claim of polytheism is no less anecdotal and subjective claim then monotheism, and no you do not directly know 'Gods' any more than monotheists directly know God.
Last edited:
@Vouthon
Shoghi Effendi, the leader of the Baha’i Faith from 1921-1957 and authorised interpreter of the Baha’i Writings makes some very strong statements about the Baha’i writings approach to religion, specifically Islam and Christianity.
The Faith standing identified with the name of Bahá’u’lláh disclaims any intention to belittle any of the Prophets gone before Him, to whittle down any of their teachings, to obscure, however slightly, the radiance of their Revelations, to oust them from the hearts of their followers, to abrogate the fundamentals of their doctrines, to discard any of their revealed Books, or to suppress the legitimate aspirations of their adherents. Repudiating the claim of any religion to be the final revelation of God to man, disclaiming finality for His own Revelation, Bahá’u’lláh inculcates the basic principle of the relativity of religious truth, the continuity of Divine Revelation, the progressiveness of religious experience. His aim is to widen the basis of all revealed religions and to unravel the mysteries of their scriptures. He insists on the unqualified recognition of the unity of their purpose, restates the eternal verities they enshrine, coordinates their functions, distinguishes the essential and the authentic from the nonessential and spurious in their teachings, separates the God-given truths from the priest-prompted superstitions, and on this as a basis proclaims the possibility, and even prophecies the inevitability, of their unification, and the consummation of their highest hopes.
Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promised Day Is Come, Pages 108-113
Later in the passage Shoghi Effendi further elaborates while quoting Bahá’u’lláh:
Nor should it be thought for a moment that the followers of Bahá’u’lláh either seek to degrade or even belittle the rank of the world’s religious leaders, whether Christian, Muslim, or of any other denomination, should their conduct conform to their professions, and be worthy of the position they occupy. “Those divines,” Bahá’u’lláh has affirmed, “…who are truly adorned with the ornament of knowledge and of a goodly character are, verily, as a head to the body of the world, and as eyes to the nations. The guidance of men hath, at all times, been and is dependent upon these blessed souls.” And again: “The divine whose conduct is upright, and the sage who is just, are as the spirit unto the body of the world. Well is it with that divine whose head is attired with the crown of justice, and whose temple is adorned with the ornament of equity.” And yet again: “The divine who hath seized and quaffed the most holy Wine, in the name of the sovereign Ordainer, is as an eye unto the world. Well is it with them who obey him, and call him to remembrance.” “Great is the blessedness of that divine,” He, in another connection, has written, “that hath not allowed knowledge to become a veil between him and the One Who is the Object of all knowledge, and who, when the Self-Subsisting appeared, hath turned with a beaming face towards Him. He, in truth, is numbered with the learned. The inmates of Paradise seek the blessing of his breath, and his lamp sheddeth its radiance over all who are in heaven and on earth. He, verily, is numbered with the inheritors of the Prophets. He that beholdeth him hath, verily, beheld the True One, and he that turneth towards him hath, verily, turned towards God, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” “Respect ye the divines amongst you,” is His exhortation, “They whose acts conform to the knowledge they possess, who observe the statutes of God, and decree the things God hath decreed in the Book. Know ye that they are the lamps of guidance betwixt earth and heaven. They that have no consideration for the position and merit of the divines amongst them have, verily, altered the bounty of God vouchsafed unto them.”
I’m aware I haven’t fully answered your questions and there is more much to say, but wondered how you as a Christian lawyer of Catholic Persuasion thought about the state of the world today. So I have a few questions to ask if you don’t mind.
Do you believe humanity would benefit from laws and ordinances from God to meet the challenges of nation building and international cooperation?
Do you see Christianity has a role in creating peace in the world? What is that role?
Do you believe Christianity presents a clear and united vision to the world as to what the key challenges are and how to overcome them?
If Jesus were to return to the world today how do you think He would view the state of the religion that bears His name?
I ask because I need to become a better listener and don’t fully understand Catholicism. I was raised Protestant. Thanks in advance.
Shoghi Effendi, the leader of the Baha’i Faith from 1921-1957 and authorised interpreter of the Baha’i Writings makes some very strong statements about the Baha’i writings approach to religion, specifically Islam and Christianity.
The Faith standing identified with the name of Bahá’u’lláh disclaims any intention to belittle any of the Prophets gone before Him, to whittle down any of their teachings, to obscure, however slightly, the radiance of their Revelations, to oust them from the hearts of their followers, to abrogate the fundamentals of their doctrines, to discard any of their revealed Books, or to suppress the legitimate aspirations of their adherents. Repudiating the claim of any religion to be the final revelation of God to man, disclaiming finality for His own Revelation, Bahá’u’lláh inculcates the basic principle of the relativity of religious truth, the continuity of Divine Revelation, the progressiveness of religious experience. His aim is to widen the basis of all revealed religions and to unravel the mysteries of their scriptures. He insists on the unqualified recognition of the unity of their purpose, restates the eternal verities they enshrine, coordinates their functions, distinguishes the essential and the authentic from the nonessential and spurious in their teachings, separates the God-given truths from the priest-prompted superstitions, and on this as a basis proclaims the possibility, and even prophecies the inevitability, of their unification, and the consummation of their highest hopes.
Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promised Day Is Come, Pages 108-113
Later in the passage Shoghi Effendi further elaborates while quoting Bahá’u’lláh:
Nor should it be thought for a moment that the followers of Bahá’u’lláh either seek to degrade or even belittle the rank of the world’s religious leaders, whether Christian, Muslim, or of any other denomination, should their conduct conform to their professions, and be worthy of the position they occupy. “Those divines,” Bahá’u’lláh has affirmed, “…who are truly adorned with the ornament of knowledge and of a goodly character are, verily, as a head to the body of the world, and as eyes to the nations. The guidance of men hath, at all times, been and is dependent upon these blessed souls.” And again: “The divine whose conduct is upright, and the sage who is just, are as the spirit unto the body of the world. Well is it with that divine whose head is attired with the crown of justice, and whose temple is adorned with the ornament of equity.” And yet again: “The divine who hath seized and quaffed the most holy Wine, in the name of the sovereign Ordainer, is as an eye unto the world. Well is it with them who obey him, and call him to remembrance.” “Great is the blessedness of that divine,” He, in another connection, has written, “that hath not allowed knowledge to become a veil between him and the One Who is the Object of all knowledge, and who, when the Self-Subsisting appeared, hath turned with a beaming face towards Him. He, in truth, is numbered with the learned. The inmates of Paradise seek the blessing of his breath, and his lamp sheddeth its radiance over all who are in heaven and on earth. He, verily, is numbered with the inheritors of the Prophets. He that beholdeth him hath, verily, beheld the True One, and he that turneth towards him hath, verily, turned towards God, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” “Respect ye the divines amongst you,” is His exhortation, “They whose acts conform to the knowledge they possess, who observe the statutes of God, and decree the things God hath decreed in the Book. Know ye that they are the lamps of guidance betwixt earth and heaven. They that have no consideration for the position and merit of the divines amongst them have, verily, altered the bounty of God vouchsafed unto them.”
I’m aware I haven’t fully answered your questions and there is more much to say, but wondered how you as a Christian lawyer of Catholic Persuasion thought about the state of the world today. So I have a few questions to ask if you don’t mind.
Do you believe humanity would benefit from laws and ordinances from God to meet the challenges of nation building and international cooperation?
Do you see Christianity has a role in creating peace in the world? What is that role?
Do you believe Christianity presents a clear and united vision to the world as to what the key challenges are and how to overcome them?
If Jesus were to return to the world today how do you think He would view the state of the religion that bears His name?
I ask because I need to become a better listener and don’t fully understand Catholicism. I was raised Protestant. Thanks in advance.
Brother, I can relate.
At risk of possible embarrassment, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. This is quite possibly because I do not really understand what either this "progressive revelation" or "naturalist" thing is, as it likely doesn't apply to the religious traditions I identify with. This would of course mean there are far more than just whatever these two views represent, but if you could articulate these two of many views for me, it would be interesting to consider.
I think you misunderstand my point. Further, I would take care not to disrespect the religious traditions and experiences of polytheists. While perhaps unintentional, it really isn't up to you to tell us how we know our gods. In any case, my point was is that polytheistic religions don't tend to have divine intermediaries like the Abrahamic religions do. We don't utilize some pre-approved authority that speaks on a god's behalf. We work with the gods directly without some human intermediary spreading the message. If we want to know something of the gods, we don't go to a priest to ask them. We go to the gods ourselves. Because of this, some have remarked that contemporary Paganism is a religious movement where each person is their own priest or priestess. Each person is their own religious authority since we work with our gods directly rather than going through some sacred text or religious authority figure.
Very happy to respond to your great questions @adrian009 I shall deal with them one by one (and perhaps not all tonight), as they require full answers.
Catholicism is a 'natural law' faith tradition.
This philosophy is distinct from the 'divine command' theory common to some Protestant theologies and religious systems with revealed positive law (i.e. Judaism and Islam).
We, and I myself, are not of the view that human beings require a divinely ordained positive law as in Mosaic times - which I would refer to as "legislation" - for the purpose of consolidating nation-states or solidifying international relations between them.
Through the moral intuitions of conscience and reason, human beings have direct access to the Natural Law, which itself participates in the Eternal Law (the Mind of God). Because of original sin, our ability to comprehend the natural law will never be perfect, and so perfection cannot be expected from any temporal legal systems. In this way, Catholics believe that the state cannot 'legislate morality':
"In order for all persons to exercise their liberty, the state must tolerate those freely chosen actions of citizens of which it disapproves." (William Galston, Liberal Purposes, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p.222)
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....belief/2012/mar/05/thomas-aquinas-natural-law
[For Aquinas] law is not about individual morality, and individual vices should only be legislated against when they threaten harm to others. Unlike Aristotle, Aquinas believed that an informed conscience takes precedence over law. No individual should obey a law that he or she believes to be unjust, because laws that violate reason are not laws. Moreover, laws must have sufficient flexibility to be waived when necessary in the interests of the common good.
This last part is critical: if a piece of legislation is regard as 'divinely authored', it cannot have the flexibility to be waived when it conflicts with the common good. And the law must always serve the common good.
Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine of Hippo both maintained that prostitution was gravely immoral, for instance, and thus out of keeping with their religion. Yet they did not see its immorality as sufficient to justify a legal proscription of the practice by civil governments. Aquinas advocated tolerance of prostitution by noting:
“Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain evils be incurred: thus Augustine says [De ordine 2.4]: ‘If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.’” (ST II-II, q. 10, a. 11)
The historian Vincent Dever concisely summarized Aquinas’ thoughts on this:
illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL13/13ch4.html
While civil law does forbid certain vicious acts such as murder and theft, and requires certain acts of virtue such as caring for one’s children and paying one’s debts, it cannot “forbid all vicious acts” nor can it prescribe “all acts of virtue.” Aside from the fact that it would supplant the need for eternal law, why cannot civil law be enacted to prohibit all vicious activities?
The goal of human law is the temporal tranquility of the state and not eternal salvation. Given this goal of temporal peace and order, Aquinas notes that the mandate of human law is to prohibit “whatever destroys social intercourse” and not to “prohibit everything contrary to virtue.” The main reason for civil law’s inability to prohibit all vice is that it cannot effect a full internal reform of an individual.
An individual in their personal moral life is wounded by original sin and can only be restored by God’s grace. Therefore the coercive and educating power of human law is inefficacious in this realm. Aquinas asserts, then, that human law cannot “exact perfect virtue from man, for such virtue belongs to few and cannot be found in so great a number of people as human law has to direct".
The goal of human law is the temporal tranquility of the state and not eternal salvation. Given this goal of temporal peace and order, Aquinas notes that the mandate of human law is to prohibit “whatever destroys social intercourse” and not to “prohibit everything contrary to virtue.” The main reason for civil law’s inability to prohibit all vice is that it cannot effect a full internal reform of an individual.
An individual in their personal moral life is wounded by original sin and can only be restored by God’s grace. Therefore the coercive and educating power of human law is inefficacious in this realm. Aquinas asserts, then, that human law cannot “exact perfect virtue from man, for such virtue belongs to few and cannot be found in so great a number of people as human law has to direct".
We prudentially judge a given situation and formulate appropriate legislation to address it, using our minds. This will change from decade-to-decade, with older legislation continually requiring review after the passage of time, as human understanding progresses and social conditions develop (populorum progressio).
Since legislation mutates and develops continually - with fresh supreme court judgments overturning older precedents and every new parliament / congress, after an election, passing newer laws to update the existing statutebook, in accord with government policy and evolving social trends - I can't say I would see the merit in having a cache of 'immutable' positive law that is deemed so sacred that we are, basically, 'stuck' with it for the duration of an entire dispensation (a thousand years is an awfully long time in human terms).
As it is, the Catholic Faith does not propose any such revealed positive law / legislation for society or international society.
However I would here make a distinction between the "law", so called (i.e. the principle of the rule of law) and "legislation". The medieval Church helpfully distinguished between the pre-ordained natural law discoverable by conscience and reason, on the one hand, and the socially constructed positive law of monarchs.
This belief that there are fundamental, immutable legal principles “higher than the will of the current government" or any legislation it may enact (because they arise from natural law), and which thus limit the extent of governmental power, is very important to Catholic theology. This is what we mean by 'natural law'.
In America, to take one example, that particular society is 'safeguarded' in this way by the Constitution but more fundamentally, at least socially, by the Declaration of Independence (1777) which defines that certain 'rights' are inalienable because they derive from (as the text notes): "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", these being: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".
Britain, and Commonwealth countries like New Zealand, are much less religious than the United States (which has a secular state with no established religion but a more religious society than either of ours) but they nevertheless still have this idea (expressed in more secular language) in our legal tradition i.e.
"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)
This is expressed in the modern age chiefly through human rights law, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) that all countries in Europe are subject to. That fundamental cornerstone of European law states the:
"...profound belief in those Fundamental Freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend..."
This is but a modern, secular iteration of Catholic natural law: there are certain rights and norms that precede any positive legislation and circumscribe the power of governments, and against which standards they are held to account. Limited government.
Here's a scholarly reference, from the Springer Enclyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy, published 2011 and written by a scholar I haven't yet brought up, Professor John Kilcullen (yet another expert in politics and medieval studies):
Medieval Theories of Natural Rights - Macquarie University
From the 12th century onwards, medieval canon lawyers and, from the early 14th century, theologians and philosophers began to use ius to mean a right, and developed a theory of natural rights, the predecessor of modern theories of human rights. The main applications of this theory were in respect of property and government.
This is the ancestor of the modern idea of human rights, i.e. rights belonging permanently to any human being as such, independently of the law or customs of any community
Even in normal situations, the rights or powers of a ruler are limited by the rights of subjects, not only by the right to replace a tyrannical ruler but also by other "rights and liberties". The ruler's power is obviously limited by the natural rights of subjects.
This is the ancestor of the modern idea of human rights, i.e. rights belonging permanently to any human being as such, independently of the law or customs of any community
Even in normal situations, the rights or powers of a ruler are limited by the rights of subjects, not only by the right to replace a tyrannical ruler but also by other "rights and liberties". The ruler's power is obviously limited by the natural rights of subjects.
Professor Quentin Skinner of Cambridge University, in his book The Foundations of Modern Political Thought:
It was from the perfect law of liberty of the Gospels that Ockham developed his notions of the natural rights of individuals and his subsequent understanding of the origin and limits of all institutions with jurisdiction over men's lives
Or to quote William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), medieval Franciscan canonist, directly:
"As St Ambrose said, the Christian religion deprives no one of his rights. Wherefore, the pope can deprive no one of his rights for a person has such rights only from God, by nature, or from another man, and by the same reason the pope cannot deprive anyone of his liberty which is given by God and by nature" (Ockham, De imperatorum et pontificum potestate, ed. Brampton, pp. 9-10.
Last edited:
I most certainly do.
The Church regards itself as “the sacrament of the unity of the human race” (Catechism) whose “maternal love…embraces all people as the industrious guardian of the teachings of its Founder [Jesus] who, by His words and those of the apostles, taught men the fraternal necessity which unites the whole world” (Leo XIII, 1889) and “faithful to its divine doctrines and its most glorious traditions, considers all men as brothers and teaches them to love one another…according to the observance of the principles of the natural law, and to condemn everything that violates them” (Pope Benedict XV, 1917), for which reason “the Church has always sought to destroy the barriers that spiritually divide humanity and to create and develop sentiments of fraternity and love” (Pius XI, 1937).
The principles of the natural law dictate that due to this “unity of all mankind, which exists in law and in fact, individuals do not feel themselves isolated units, like grains of sand” and for which reason “the nations are not destined to break the unity of the human race, but rather to enrich and embellish it by the sharing of their own peculiar gifts and by that reciprocal interchange of goods” (Pope Pius XII, 1939).
Let’s see what traditional Catholic Social Teaching, or rather theology, had to say on the matter.......
The following sections from Henri Grenier’s (1899 – 1980) manual of Thomistic Moral Philosophy, provide a good introductory summary of our social doctrine in this respect:
thejosias.com/2015/06/24/world-government-is-required-by-natural-law/
1157 Statement of the question
- International society is defined: a society which comprises all States, and directs them to their common good, i.e., to the common good of all mankind.
International society neither absorbs nor abolishes States, but leaves them their independence and autonomy in their own order.
International society, as directing all States to the common good of mankind, must possess true authority, superior to the authority of any individual States.
The subject of this authority must be determined by man, just as the organization and constitution of international society must be determined by him.
2° All who deny the specific unity of the human race conceive international society as unlawful and impossible.
Moreover, all who consider the State as the source of all rights, in doing so, deny that international society has its foundation in nature.
Again, all who conceive a perfect society as absolutely autonomous and independent hold that the State cannot be subject to the authority of an international society.
But we have already learned that a perfect society is a society which pursues a perfect good, i.e., the fulness of happiness in life.
Hence we teach that international society is founded in nature, and is directed to the good of all civil societies, i.e., of all States or nations
1168. Statement of the thesis
Thesis: International society is founded in nature, and is directed to the good of all nations.
First part: International society is founded in nature.— International society is founded in nature if all States are naturally united by mutual moral and juridical bonds, and must tend to the common good of all mankind. But all States are naturally united by mutual moral and juridical bonds, and must tend to the common good of all mankind.
Therefore.[1]
Major.— In this case, we have all the requisites of an international society: a) the pursuit of a specific common good, i.e., the common good of all mankind; b) the juridical union of all States for the pursuit of the common good of the whole human race.
Minor.— a) All States are united by mutual moral and juridical bonds.— This is so because, as we have already proved, international law exists.
b)All States must tend to the common good of all mankind. Mankind, i.e., the human race, has unity of origin, unity of nature, and unity of territory or habitation, which is the whole world. Hence all men, all groups or communities of men, and all States must tend to the common good of all mankind.
Second part: International society is directed to the common good of all nations, i.e., of all States.— 1° International society leaves each State its autonomy in its own order, and directs the common good of each State to a more perfect common good, which is the common good of all nations.
2° International society fosters peace and harmony among nations, because the enforcement of international law belongs to a superior authority, just as the enforcement of laws governing the relations between individual persons is reserved to the political authority. Hence States can, without recourse to war, settle their quarrels according to the principles of justice
International society, as directing all States to the common good of mankind, must possess true authority, superior to the authority of any individual States.
The subject of this authority must be determined by man, just as the organization and constitution of international society must be determined by him.
2° All who deny the specific unity of the human race conceive international society as unlawful and impossible.
Moreover, all who consider the State as the source of all rights, in doing so, deny that international society has its foundation in nature.
Again, all who conceive a perfect society as absolutely autonomous and independent hold that the State cannot be subject to the authority of an international society.
But we have already learned that a perfect society is a society which pursues a perfect good, i.e., the fulness of happiness in life.
Hence we teach that international society is founded in nature, and is directed to the good of all civil societies, i.e., of all States or nations
1168. Statement of the thesis
Thesis: International society is founded in nature, and is directed to the good of all nations.
First part: International society is founded in nature.— International society is founded in nature if all States are naturally united by mutual moral and juridical bonds, and must tend to the common good of all mankind. But all States are naturally united by mutual moral and juridical bonds, and must tend to the common good of all mankind.
Therefore.[1]
Major.— In this case, we have all the requisites of an international society: a) the pursuit of a specific common good, i.e., the common good of all mankind; b) the juridical union of all States for the pursuit of the common good of the whole human race.
Minor.— a) All States are united by mutual moral and juridical bonds.— This is so because, as we have already proved, international law exists.
b)All States must tend to the common good of all mankind. Mankind, i.e., the human race, has unity of origin, unity of nature, and unity of territory or habitation, which is the whole world. Hence all men, all groups or communities of men, and all States must tend to the common good of all mankind.
Second part: International society is directed to the common good of all nations, i.e., of all States.— 1° International society leaves each State its autonomy in its own order, and directs the common good of each State to a more perfect common good, which is the common good of all nations.
2° International society fosters peace and harmony among nations, because the enforcement of international law belongs to a superior authority, just as the enforcement of laws governing the relations between individual persons is reserved to the political authority. Hence States can, without recourse to war, settle their quarrels according to the principles of justice
Last edited:
Neuropteron
Active Member
Permit me to clarify my premise
Truth revealed by God is constant and unchangeable. However, sometimes our understanding of these revelation can change, because we might have missunderstood them in the first place.
In contrast some truth discovered by men changes and progresses with time and experience.
i.e
Men believed the earth to be flat, this understanding has progressed. Thus, what we believe to be true one day can change the next.
Jesus words in John 16:12 shows that not all truth (from God) has been revealed yet.
"I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present".
Additionally the book of Revelation mentions scrolls that will reveal further truth in the future (Rev 20:12)
Cheers
God, "Adam, the earth is round".
Adam, "Ok".
It would certainly be more convincing if all the information provided by a messenger was verified to be true, even at a later date.
So what did Baháʼu'lláh reveal that wouldn't have made sense to people 2000 years ago?
od19g6
Member
You don't know what the term Manifestation of God means do you?
So in other words you don't really have any.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"Islamic Allah"
Friend @od19g6 !
Bahaullah mentions "Allah" in Kitab-i-Iqan, perhaps that has been described by one as "Islamic Allah?":
"و اين جوان ناصری که خود را مسيح اللّه می نامد"
"whereas this youthful Nazarene, who laid claim to the station of the divine Messiah"
Iqan Verse 17 refer my post #85 in another thread colored in green.
I understand that Shoghí Effendí has incorrectly translated it as "the divine Messiah" while Bahaullah had mentioned the words in original Iqan Farsi as " مسيح اللّه " , the translation of which comes to "The Messiah of Allah". Right, please?
With wrong translations of Bahaullah's writings and his misrepresentations as mentioned above the case of progressive revelation is impossible to be established. Right, please?
Regards
________
An introduction.
#182 , #183
Last edited:
Most of This reflects the principles and teachings of the Baha'i Faith revealed more than a hundred years earlier as standards of the New Age.
At risk of possible embarrassment, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. This is quite possibly because I do not really understand what either this "progressive revelation" or "naturalist" thing is, as it likely doesn't apply to the religious traditions I identify with. This would of course mean there are far more than just whatever these two views represent, but if you could articulate these two of many views for me, it would be interesting to consider.
I think you misunderstand my point. Further, I would take care not to disrespect the religious traditions and experiences of polytheists. While perhaps unintentional, it really isn't up to you to tell us how we know our gods. In any case, my point was is that polytheistic religions don't tend to have divine intermediaries like the Abrahamic religions do. We don't utilize some pre-approved authority that speaks on a god's behalf. We work with the gods directly without some human intermediary spreading the message. If we want to know something of the gods, we don't go to a priest to ask them. We go to the gods ourselves. Because of this, some have remarked that contemporary Paganism is a religious movement where each person is their own priest or priestess. Each person is their own religious authority since we work with our gods directly rather than going through some sacred text or religious authority figure.
I will respond to this after some thought, but it does contain contradictions, and did not clearly respond to what I posted.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
“We do not need your silly intermediaries because we can go directly to our gods.”
People might believe they are communicating directly with “gods” but since there are no such gods whatever they are communicating with is imaginary. Imo.
Of course, it is a Baha’i belief that there are no gods, there is only one true God, and that nobody except a Manifestation of God can ever communicate with the one true God directly. Moreover, nobody can know the Essence of the one true God, not even the Manifestations of God.
Best I allow Baha’u’llah to speak instead of me as He is far more eloquent and makes His point in no uncertain terms, also giving the reasoning behind it.
“Every attempt which, from the beginning that hath no beginning, hath been made to visualize and know God is limited by the exigencies of His own creation—a creation which He, through the operation of His own Will and for the purposes of none other but His own Self, hath called into being. Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence, and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 318
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Hanging onto antecedents is just a tool people use to deny progressive revelation.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
What is the significance of "YHWH"? Should other religions be using this name to define which God they are claiming to believe in? Was this God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believed by any other people in the ancient world? Other ancient people believed in various gods and goddesses, but they were called false by this God of the Hebrew people. Now most all of those other gods and goddesses and the religions built around them are believed to be myth. The belief in One God has pretty much become what most religions believe these days. But... how do they define that God? Jews, Muslims and Baha'is certainly do not define that God as The Father, the Son and Holy Spirit, so those religions wouldn't say that Trinitarian Christians believe in the same God. Are there other beliefs that Muslims and Baha'is have that make the God they say is the one true God wrong?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
This is now open to any Baha'i, since I haven't seen the response from od19g6. If od19g6 has, and I somehow missed it let me know. But Baha'is claim that progressive revelation is what is the truth. One religion was given enough truth to get them ready for the next messenger that brought more truth. But, not all religions are included in this progression. It makes no mention of "progressive" revelation within a religion, like Hinduism and Judaism that both had multiple people that would be called "manifestations" by the Baha'is. Also, how does it deal with religions that were truly "false" religions with false gods? Like the ones that are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. With one of those religions God ordered that Elijah kill all their prophets. Anyway, here is the original questions from post 271. What's the answer Baha'is? You made the claim.
od19g6 said: ↑
The only fundamental difference with Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad is the social teachings of their revelation in which it was the time and place that is was revealed in.
CG Didymus said: ↑
What were the social teachings of Jesus that were changed by Muhammad?
od19g6 said: ↑
The spiritual teachings are eternal. But the social teachings change from age to age.
CG Didymus said: ↑
In just the major religions, what are the eternal spiritual teachings that each of the religions teaches? And, in each one, what were the social teachings that the next religion in the progression changed?
od19g6 said: ↑
Not if that Prophet comes with proofs of His mission.
od19g6 said: ↑
The only fundamental difference with Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad is the social teachings of their revelation in which it was the time and place that is was revealed in.
CG Didymus said: ↑
What were the social teachings of Jesus that were changed by Muhammad?
od19g6 said: ↑
The spiritual teachings are eternal. But the social teachings change from age to age.
CG Didymus said: ↑
In just the major religions, what are the eternal spiritual teachings that each of the religions teaches? And, in each one, what were the social teachings that the next religion in the progression changed?
od19g6 said: ↑
Not if that Prophet comes with proofs of His mission.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
P.R. - a tool of usurpers. I'm inclined to believe that usurpers commonly hold to "replacement theology", wherein the usurpers claim divine or divinely inspired authority to supplant a previously existing "faith community". E.g. Islam supplants Judaism and Christianity, and does so (IMO) by alleging that the original faith community was Islamic but became corrupted [that is my current impression]. Through the revelation given Muhammad, "the true, correct, and original faith content" was restored. Baha'i goes even further, supplanting as many "faith communities" as it can swallow and digest.
IMO, any Christian community that claims to supplant Judaism errs in similar, but not identical, fashion. The difference between the Christian version of usurping and the Islamic/Baha'i versions of usurping is that many of the Christian usurpers still have some notion of Israel's God the Father but have split Him and His Holy Spirit into two separate Persons.
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
re: #1. That claim is either true or false. I do not know enough to be able to concur that it is true wholeheartedly nor to disagree firmly.
re: #2. I don't know. Personally; I think that's a question that merits an answer, but I'm not prepared to begin to offer an answer here.
re: #3. Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and some other quasi-/semi-Christian groups share anti-trinitarian criticism. But that's about all that they have in common. The Baha'i are confused.
re: #4. Other than the fact that the god they believe in is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus?