Baha'i Apologetics Anyone?

[YmirGF]

The fact that Baha'u'llah had a secretary has nothing to do with pomp or ego; it's a matter of ensuring authenticity for his followers in the coming centuries.

I understand that angle, but it still strikes me as a bit disingenuous. Regardless how the legacy is represented, one would have to be rather full of themself in order to consider hiring someone to follow them around in the first place.

People generally want to be able to refer to a resource that they can consider reliable, and it's especially convenient if those reliable materials were either written by the prophet himself or someone who was there and dictating the words as the prophet was talking.

I can only wonder, did he ever say anything to the effect that "You do not need my words to know the reality of God! These words are an ediface for the spiritual dullards among you to ponder as they may."

 

[Adib]

I understand that angle, but it still strikes me as a bit disingenuous. Regardless how the legacy is represented, one would have to be rather full of themself in order to consider hiring someone to follow them around in the first place.

That's a matter of perspective as you said. I'd venture to guess that he was more concerned with ensuring the authenticity of his writings than potentially being called disingenuous in the coming years.

Not to mention that he was never in the habit of "lording over" people or blatantly exposing pomp; any of his personal thoughts evidently can't be comprehended by anyone except himself, and the same goes for any other person, therefore any judgment on it would be speculation. Moreover, he emphasized modesty and moderation in all things, and has called himself "coarser than clay." He was not a conceited person.

This was a man who allowed a woman to throw stones at him as he was being taken away to jail because he knew that she felt she was committing a meritorious act in the sight of God. This was a man who was known as the Father of the Poor in the province of Mazandaran before becoming a Babi and eventually receiving revelation of his own. This was a man who denied the inheritance of royalty, transient nobility, and worldly possessions, instead preferring 40 years of exile and the revealing of a new religion. If he wanted the contingent pomp and glory that one can get in a lifetime, he could have easily had it, considering his father was a Persian vizier. But that was not the life he chose.

Your position on Baha'u'llah's choice to ensure the authenticity of his writings, again, is a matter of perspective.

I can only wonder, did he ever say anything to the effect that "You do not need my words to know the reality of God! These words are an ediface for the spiritual dullards among you to ponder as they may."

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're asking as to whether Baha'u'llah ever asserted that one does not actually need his words - that one can understand the reality of God without his help or that of any other prophet - and that his words are only there for the "spiritually incompetent" to think about. That isn't the case. Baha'u'llah stresses the importance of "immersing [our]selves in the ocean of his words" to gain a clear understanding of the station of man, prophets, God, and the Baha'i Faith in general. However, we do not believe that anyone can comprehend the reality or essence of God (which is actually the only reason why Leo Tolstoy did not become a Baha'i), as explained here:

God in the Bahá'í Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Halcyon]

I'm not doubting this and I apologize if I sound punctilious, but could I please have the exact quotation with the source for this prophecy?

Like I said, there is a version of the prophecy in the texts of all the schools, most Buddhist texts have not been translated.
This site gives an overview of the prophecy and includes one man's translation of one of the versions of the prophecy. I hope it is of some help.
Maitreya Buddha

 

[YmirGF]

Your position on Baha'u'llah's choice to ensure the authenticity of his writings, again, is a matter of perspective.

I did not claim otherwise.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're asking as to whether Baha'u'llah ever asserted that one does not actually need his words - that one can understand the reality of God without his help or that of any other prophet - and that his words are only there for the "spiritually incompetent" to think about. That isn't the case.

Strangely enough, I was fairly confident that you would affirm this minor point.

Baha'u'llah stresses the importance of "immersing [our]selves in the ocean of his words" to gain a clear understanding of the station of man, prophets, God, and the Baha'i Faith in general.

That is rather big of him, I suppose, but sadly, I detect only marginal merit in his thoughts.

However, we do not believe that anyone can comprehend the reality or essence of God (which is actually the only reason why Leo Tolstoy did not become a Baha'i), as explained here:

You see, this is a point that bothers me. If no one can comprehend the reality or essence of God then how on Earth could Baha'u'llah reasonably claim any specialized knowledge of god. In theory, the only way to bolster his claims is to appeal to his alleged authority -- but even still, it goes against the original premise. Perhaps I am missing something though.

God in the Bahá'í Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the sort of thing I am getting at. Even if taken as allegorical or metaphorically the statement just doesn't add up.

All-praise to the unity of God, and all-honour to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things, Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and subtle elements of His creation, and Who, rescuing His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction, hath received them into His kingdom of incorruptible glory. Nothing short of His all-encompassing grace, His all-pervading mercy, could have possibly achieved it.

"rescuing His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction?" Oh, come on. If we were uncreated then how would we be in peril? It smacks of an ad campaign for a being with a larger ego than the writer.

Then there is this nugget:

So perfect and comprehensive is His creation that no mind or heart, however keen or pure, can ever grasp the nature of the most insignificant of His creatures; much less fathom the mystery of Him Who is the Day Star of Truth, Who is the invisible and unknowable Essence...[

They key elements here, in my view, are found in the words "no mind or heart, however keen or pure, can ever grasp the nature of the most insignificant". Now, maybe I am being especially dense, but if that is the case how exactly can anyone write about it with any accuracy whatsoever? As far as I can see we are back to the basic appeal to authority scam. Like, seriously, "much less fathom the mystery of Him Who is the Day Star of Truth, Who is the invisible and unknowable Essence". If it is so unknowable one can only wonder how Baha'u'llah knew anything about it. Back to the appeal to authority...........

 

[Adib]

You see, this is a point that bothers me. If no one can comprehend the reality or essence of God then how on Earth could Baha'u'llah reasonably claim any specialized knowledge of god. In theory, the only way to bolster his claims is to appeal to his alleged authority -- but even still, it goes against the original premise. Perhaps I am missing something though.

Take a look at this symbol:

The facets of this symbol relevant to this discussion are the three horizontal lines and the vertical one that cuts through the others. The first horizontal line is the realm of God; the second horizontal line is the realm of the Manifestations of God (in our view, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah, though that list is not complete as we believe there have been others since before recorded time and that there will always be more after Baha'u'llah); and the third horizontal line is the realm of man. The vertical line represents the Holy Spirit or the Primal Will - it originates with God and its impact reaches us through the utterances of the Manifestations of God (who are not God incarnate, mind you; for more information please see: Manifestation of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Therefore, the Manifestations of God serve as the intermediary between God and us because that is their endowed station. We learn as much as we can about God through the words of the Manifestations, but we cannot know the entire reality of God because our finite minds preclude us from doing so.

"rescuing His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction?" Oh, come on. If we were uncreated then how would we be in peril? It smacks of an ad campaign for a being with a larger ego than the writer.

I think you're confusing two separate ideas, which is the belief that God made something out of nothing and the belief that he "[rescued] His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction." The first is self-explanatory; I would say that the second is referring to the idea that one is able to allow themselves into God's "kingdom of incorruptible glory" through adherence to the teachings of the relevant Manifestation of God for that day and age to prevent themselves from becoming spiritually remote [from God] and extinct.

Then there is this nugget:
They key elements here, in my view, are found in the words "no mind or heart, however keen or pure, can ever grasp the nature of the most insignificant". Now, maybe I am being especially dense, but if that is the case how exactly can anyone write about it with any accuracy whatsoever? As far as I can see we are back to the basic appeal to authority scam. Like, seriously, "much less fathom the mystery of Him Who is the Day Star of Truth, Who is the invisible and unknowable Essence". If it is so unknowable one can only wonder how Baha'u'llah knew anything about it. Back to the appeal to authority...........

Again, it's a matter of faith in the station of the Manifestations of God. If that seems like a cop-out or an appeal to authority then I apologize. By the same token I suppose the other 3 billion+ theists in the world are giving into a similar appeal to authority, given the stations of Muhammad and Jesus.

 

[YmirGF]

Thank you for your patience, Adib. It is appreciated.

Take a look at this symbol:

The facets of this symbol relevant to this discussion are the three horizontal lines and the vertical one that cuts through the others. The first horizontal line is the realm of God; the second horizontal line is the realm of the Manifestations of God (in our view, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah, though that list is not complete as we believe there have been others since before recorded time and that there will always be more after Baha'u'llah); and the third horizontal line is the realm of man. The vertical line represents the Holy Spirit or the Primal Will - it originates with God and its impact reaches us through the utterances of the Manifestations of God (who are not God incarnate, mind you; for more information please see: Manifestation of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

First off, thank you for attempting to put this in your own words, it is rather tiresome having Baha's simply drop quotes and precious little else, so again, thank you for that. I am not disposed to use the term Prophet, but for this discussion it seems well suited. In the same manner that the link above breaks down major and minor prophets, in my own schema, I have a different hierarchy and so you may understand my chagrin. The only "manifestations of god" I personally recognize, as avatara's, in the Sanskrit sense of the word are: Buddha, Krsna and Christ. All others, in my view, are well below these three and their words should be taken with several grains of salt. Note that none of the three produced a book, although books were indeed written about them. In my demented view, the books are brought only by those who have far less "authority". In light of this I cannot accept the symbolism offered in the image. To my jaundiced view, separation exists only in the mind of the perceiver and is wholly supported by their belief structures.

Therefore, the Manifestations of God serve as the intermediary between God and us because that is their endowed station. We learn as much as we can about God through the words of the Manifestations, but we cannot know the entire reality of God because our finite minds preclude us from doing so.

With respect, I reject this position outright. Part of the reason that more people do not sense this inherent aspect of their being is because of misleading ideas such as this. In essence, the individual is implored to look outwards for answers that can only come from within. I could just be showing my ignorance however, but that is how this notion strikes me.

I think you're confusing two separate ideas, which is the belief that God made something out of nothing and the belief that he "[rescued] His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction." The first is self-explanatory;

But to my unlearned mind, this answer is especially hollow. It is mere speculation that everything came from the nothing. If there was indeed nothing, then there would have been no "god" to create anything, but perhaps I am just being silly. My guess is that All That Is formed reality out of its own being... but what would I know about such things?

I would say that the second is referring to the idea that one is able to allow themselves into God's "kingdom of incorruptible glory" through adherence to the teachings of the relevant Manifestation of God for that day and age to prevent themselves from becoming spiritually remote [from God] and extinct.

This seems to be so hopeless in some respects. How insufferable that we have to follow what some men say in order to touch that which is already within our grasp. How sad that seems to me. To my stunted thinking it simply is not possible to become separate from what God is.... but perhaps that is just my silliness rearing its ugly head again.

Again, it's a matter of faith in the station of the Manifestations of God. If that seems like a cop-out or an appeal to authority then I apologize. By the same token I suppose the other 3 billion+ theists in the world are giving into a similar appeal to authority, given the stations of Muhammad and Jesus.

Ah, strength in numbers... yes. Well, what can I say other than there is much work to do. As I said to Booko awhile back, "You folks only have crumbs, as your loaves turned to dust long ago." Perhaps it is time to learn how to bake for ourselves.

 

[Adib]

Thank you for your patience as well, Ymir. If you don't mind I'd like to call an impasse, as the majority of both of our points are matters of personal belief and I don't feel that any further discussion would yield much fruit. However, I'm sure Bruce still has a fair bit to say.

Thank you for sharing your insight with me; I always enjoy seeing other peoples' perspectives on these matters. We're all students looking for knowledge.

 

[BruceDLimber]

And you yourself have personally read exactly how much of Baha'u'llah's scripture, Ymir?

Bruce

 

[autonomous1one1]

Thank you for your patience, Adib. It is appreciated.

First off, thank you for attempting to put this in your own words, it is rather tiresome having Baha's simply drop quotes and precious little else, so again, thank you for that. I am not disposed to use the term Prophet, but for this discussion it seems well suited. In the same manner that the link above breaks down major and minor prophets, in my own schema, I have a different hierarchy and so you may understand my chagrin. The only "manifestations of god" I personally recognize, as avatara's, in the Sanskrit sense of the word are: Buddha, Krsna and Christ. All others, in my view, are well below these three and their words should be taken with several grains of salt. Note that none of the three produced a book, although books were indeed written about them. In my demented view, the books are brought only by those who have far less "authority". In light of this I cannot accept the symbolism offered in the image. To my jaundiced view, separation exists only in the mind of the perceiver and is wholly supported by their belief structures.

With respect, I reject this position outright. Part of the reason that more people do not sense this inherent aspect of their being is because of misleading ideas such as this. In essence, the individual is implored to look outwards for answers that can only come from within. I could just be showing my ignorance however, but that is how this notion strikes me.

But to my unlearned mind, this answer is especially hollow. It is mere speculation that everything came from the nothing. If there was indeed nothing, then there would have been no "god" to create anything, but perhaps I am just being silly. My guess is that All That Is formed reality out of its own being... but what would I know about such things?

This seems to be so hopeless in some respects. How insufferable that we have to follow what some men say in order to touch that which is already within our grasp. How sad that seems to me. To my stunted thinking it simply is not possible to become separate from what God is.... but perhaps that is just my silliness rearing its ugly head again.

Ah, strength in numbers... yes. Well, what can I say other than there is much work to do. As I said to Booko awhile back, "You folks only have crumbs, as your loaves turned to dust long ago." Perhaps it is time to learn how to bake for ourselves.

Greetings YmirGF. Enjoyed your post. My own perspective is in agreement with so many of your points that now my own thinking must be examined for dementedness, jaundicement, stuntedness, ignorance, unlearnedness, and silliness. :angel2: Actually, your offerences through those approaches are appreciated.
Regards,
a..1

 

[YmirGF]

And you yourself have personally read exactly how much of Baha'u'llah's scripture, Ymir?

Bruce

Quite enough to remain unimpressed. Without question, there is light there, but it is nowhere near the effulgence I am used too.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Which doesn't answer the question, Ymir!

Please note that I specifically said "exactly how much?"

IOW, what have you read?

• one line?
• one page? Of which work?
• one book? If so, which one?
• ten books? If so, which ones?
• Every one?

Fail to provide this specific answer reduces your statement to "assertion without evidence," I fear.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[RonPrice]

What A Thread That Was!! I must say "thanks," to all you folks for your follow-up to my initial post. There were far too many issues in this thread to respond to them all. But I will post a general statement and look forward to more replies. Hopefully I won't take several years to respond as I did last time. In these middle years(65-75) of late adulthood(60-80) and on two old-age pensions, I survive, but life is busy. Hopefully, too, I will last into old-age(80++), and continue to read your many and varied responses and the many questions you have raised. -Ron Price, George Town, Tasmania
---------------------------------------------
Readers here should read the following before reading any of my attempted answers to your questions. If they read the 1500 word framework below, a framework that tries to place my remarks in a general and relevant context, they will also gain some context for my view of the Baha'i Faith. If I don’t answer your questions immediately, I will try to get back to you within 24 years by which time I will be 89!!

The function of an expert is to act within the terms of reference as outlined by some centre of authority. i can not lay claim to being an expert. The terms of reference which specifically define the general objectives and methods of an expert must be found elsewhere. I see my role as serving the specific need of an individual who writes to this site with a question and who is seeking an answer to that question. I am not here to dictate arbitrarily to anyone, but rather to serve as one of the multitude of unifying factors at work in the Baha’i Faith. I try to be courteous and tactful on the one hand and to respond in a frank and honest way on the other in dealing with questions and comments that come in. Courtesy and frankness are difficult qualities to combine. I also aim to foster a spirit of independence rather than a spirit which excessively relies on others to carry out their research and their study of the Baha’i Faith. Whether the person is a Bahá’í, an interested observer or, indeed, someone without any special interest in this Faith, often the answer to their question can easily be found on the internet at one of the thousands of sites, Baha’i and other, now in existence.

Often in answering a question, I direct the questioner to one or more of those sites for a more complete answer than the one I am providing. It is also important, especially for Baha’is but also for others who write in, to utilize the many sources of assistance within both Baha’i administration and the burgeoning number of locations for expertise available in our diverse society.

Government organizations, non-government organizations and special interest groups, inter alia are now available at the press of a button, the dialling of a number and a few clicks on the internet. So, too, are books, journals, pamphlets and a vast cornucopia of print and electronic media. Evolution is forcing humanity to engage in a cooperative enterprize that is global--interplanetary--intergalactic now--in its reach. This site and my contribution is but a small part of this vast cooperative enterprize.

There are generally two kinds of Baha’i literature or writings about this Faith. One presents the/an official view and has the voice of authority behind it. Such words are not the personal opinions of individual Baha’is. There is a second category which includes all other writing. The writing that I place here sometimes exists in this latter category, although from time to time I insert quotations that belong to the first category to explain my answer to a particular question. The quotations, of course, are used by me in a certain way and form a part of an interpretive schema that becomes part of the second category--that is, opinion.

Truth, the correct and only answer, often cannot be found for many of the questions that arise here, even if the evidence of the Baha’i Revelation, its Holy Texts, is included. This is mainly because there are often many truths, many answers, depending on the circumstances and situations—and many perspectives depending on the person answering the question and the person to whom one is writing. To put this briefly, I could simply say that truth is relative, especially religious truth which is the main variety I deal with here and with which the various questions that come in are concerned. As much as possible I try to draw on relevant quotations from the voluminous Baha’i Scriptures. Sometimes I simply do not have access to the relevant literature on a specific question since Baha’i literature in its many forms has become burgeoning, especially since the 1980s and 1990s.

The Baha’i Faith had some 200,000 adherents in 1953 when I first came in contact with this new Faith which claims to be the emerging world religion on the planet. It now has some 5 to 7 million in 2009. In those six decades much of its literature, originally in Persian and Arabic, has been translated into English. Still, there is much that remains untranslated.

Each Baha’i seeks to acquire, in his or her own way, a deeper understanding of the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. What is written here represents some of the fruits of my own efforts, limited as they are. As I have said above, my words are not authoritative. This site provides Baha’i opinion and offers but one source of opinion. This opinion is written in accordance with my capacity and understanding. Readers might like to try drawing on other Baha’is at this site and other sites, if they find my answers not to their satisfaction.(1)

The Universal House of Justice, the internationally elected body of the Baha’i Faith, pointed out recently that “the exercise of wisdom calls for a measure of love and the development of a sensitive conscience.”(2) I am only too well aware of my incapacities on these fronts. I feel somewhat presumptuous in taking on this role of opinion giver for I do not seek any preference or distinction; I do not regard my ideas or myself as superior in anyway. All of one’s talents in life are a gift from God, a gift as one writer put it, of some unmerited grace. After more than 50 years of association with a global Force that makes such a significant claim to be the emerging world religion on this planet, I offer these words and any answers I might give to questions simply as a service to others. If you would like a more personal, direct and continued communication with me just write to the email address I have provided below. -Ron Price, [email protected], 3 August 2009.
____________________
(1) With the extensive development of the internet in recent years and the massive number of sites that now exist on that easily accessible medium, at least easily accessible to those who come to this site, answers to questions like the ones I have received here can, as I say and as I want to reiterate, be found by seekers, questioners, students and others written by ostensibly informed members and often authoritative sources at many an internet site.

These sources include those: (a) within their own religion, sect, denomination, branch, division, cult or school, (b) within what one might call some individualist position as part of the existing framework of that individual or (c) within some other interest group to chose a convenient general label.

Often individuals who ask questions of me see themselves as “Christian,” but they are not adherents of any particular group of Christians. The answers that I am suggesting such people seek are answers written from a perspective, a point of view, of the adherents of their own particular religious-sub-group: fundamentalist Christianity, Sunni Islam, Theravadan Buddhism, et cetera--or written from some particular philosophical stance: secular humanism, agnosticism, atheism or existentialism among others--of the questioner. Such answers are often, if not usually, more satisfactory to such seekers. Answers that I write here are inevitably and obviously written from a Baha’i perspective and questioners need to keep what you might like to call this Baha’i bias in their minds as they read my answers to their questions.

I am suggesting, then, that questioners seek out answers from other writers, other writers who tend to be more satisfactory from within their own specific religious or philosophical framework, from within any one of the wide variety of possible religious and philosophical positions because these answers: (1) usually confirm and conform with what these questioners already believe and/or (2) they provide a much more thorough answer within the framework of experience of that religious or philosophical group vis-à-vis the Baha’i Faith.

Of course I leave the approach taken by those who seek out answers that I might give to each seeker who comes to this site and I trust that whatever answers I may offer to questioners are helpful to them. After five years of answering questions at this site, albeit belated and often leaving the process to others, I feel confident that my service here has some value.
(2) “Extracts from Letters of the Universal House of Justice on issues Related to the Study of the Baha’i Faith,” in Baha’i Canada, May 1998, p.18.
__________________
Ron Price, Tasmania, Australia
[email protected]
6 Reece Street
Pipe Clay Bay
George Town Tasmania 7253
Australia
Tel: 03-63824790-from mainland Australia; or
dial your international access code # and then 613-63824790-from outside Australia.
------------------------------------:angel2:

 

[RonPrice]

Belated Apolgies for not getting back here. I've been creating a website at: Ron Price - Pioneering Over Five Epochs as well as attending to life outside cyberspace.-Ron

 

[BruceDLimber]

Belated Apolgies for not getting back here.

Better late than never!

Bruce

 

[Muffled]

Greetings!



What you overlook is that there is an excellent reason for this!

The Baha'i scriptures are thoroughly reliable both as to pedigree and to content, and therefore serve as far more reliable (and frequently more eloquent) statements and arguments than our own eminently fallible words!

And it is for this reason that we tend to favor quoting our scriptures rather than "winging it" with alfresco responses.

Peace,

Bruce

I find it helpful. It often shows that the person winging it didn't have a clue as to what was being said. This isn't surprising since those scriptures are often over spiritualized.

 

[BruceDLimber]

[T]hose scriptures are often over spiritualized.

I'm sure you would find it difficult to impossible to apply such a put-down to the Baha'i scriptures, which truly speak for themselves!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Valma]

Hi! Ron,
We are having World Religion Day at the B.C.L. Do you know any Zoarastrains?
Valma

 

[Valma]

Is not the word of God the true Word?

 

[BruceDLimber]

[to a third party]

Do you know any Zoroastrains?

I knew one at university, and we invited him to give the Baha'i community a deepening on Zoroaster, but it turned out we knew more about Zoroastrianism than he did!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Nakosis]

My question would be why accept Bahá'u'lláh had any authority to speak for God?

What about him, his life, his writings would cause one to accept the claim of him being authorized to speak for God.


Nothing wrong with his message that I've found so far. However nothing a religious person interested in peace and unity among humans might contrive.


Honestly I don't know much about the religion, however usually there is some miracle involved with these prophets providing some kind of proof of divine authority.



He seems a good person and means well. Nothing yet I've come across the inspires any confidence of divine authority. I'll look further but if there is something you can direct me to that provides any credibility to the claim of speaking on God's behalf.