Did the animals talk?

[stvdv]

The Almighty God did give all of us a conscience, that's true. Romans 2:14,15 speaks of those without Law (of Moses) still having a conscience given by God.

Thank you for sharing "Romans 2".
Useful, humbling verses for Christians

Spoiler: Good Bible verses Romans 2

1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[dybmh]

If I were to accept that single verse literally and with no context I might conclude that I manifest Satan and so does most other people on the planet. However Satan doesn’t literally exist as an entity in Baha’i theology. Rather Satan is seen as a symbol of the lower self.

But the word choice "Satanic" is significant, isn't it? Because it was ( according to Baha'i theology ) penned by a Manifestation of G-d? It seemed like there was a specific context a specific reason for using that word "Satanic" instead of "vanity and arrogance"?

My point is this: When I read the Book of Certitude recently, I read it understanding that it was a response to a specific person at a specific time. In that context, the word "Satanic" ( when it's used and how it's used ) has a literal meaning. It had a literal meaning to Ḥájí Mírzá Siyyid Muḥammad, didn't it? And the people and ideas who are called Satanic have a literal meaning, right? But it can also have a deeper more nuanced symbolic meaning to the wider audience? It's the symbol of the lower self, as you said?

That's the way it is for Torah and the Tanach in Judaism. There's a story that is being told literally, and, there are many layers of possible symbolic significance. The question posed in the OP is asking about what is literally happening in the story. And that is why looking at the literal meaning of the words is important in this thread. Whether or not the story itself is implausible or fantastical is irrelevant.

 

[stvdv]

Impossible to accept? I don't know...

Maybe Song of Songs and Proverbs? Also, Genesis 49: Judah is not literally a lion; Issachar is not literally a donkey... etc...

It doesn't mean I don't accept them, though. Why do you ask?

Edit to add: Question: are there parts of the Book Of Certitude that you consider impossible to accept literally?

Example:

"Know verily that Knowledge is of two kinds: Divine and Satanic."
(The Kitáb-i-Íqán)
www.bahai.org/r/400117428

If you know, that God is beyond our understanding, don't you think it makes more sense to use symbolic language instead of literal language when explaining God, Divine and other such issues?

Also a diverse audience makes it believable to me that there is lots of symbolism. Of course plenty of literal instructions too.

But when talking about understanding God, my first thought will be "symbolic meaning".

 

[rational experiences]

Males in science invented symbolic meaning after they used words for storytelling ideals about the cosmos, Earth O as a God entity that supported their life and existence.

And knowingly told that story as a group of males, brotherhood living after the nature Garden existed spiritually. For no male can claim that they existed as a self before the Nature Garden did.

Hence the word of God was never science. Science invented symbolism by describing scientific concepts and with use of Numbers as a value symbol.

So they infer that it was secret.

A male as a human confessed that he spoke on behalf of animals by describing every detail about their natural present self forms. As if he owned the personal rights, just as he does today, claims some other authority gives him personal rights to do whatever he wants. Just as a human.....as supported by a group male mentality.

How he enforced his beliefs by that group and cult/science mentality, historically.

AI extra radiation UFO mass needed for scientific converting of natural God stone cold mass radiation held fusion...….attacked all bodies. And it is how his speaking on behalf of animal life was encoded.

What a male falsified as a lower self...when it was not owned by any natural life.

It was owned by science causation, which owned a pre title Satanism. Con science was its new title.....seeing Satanism cult science had been outlawed in the human community due to the attack on natural life, as a human history.

How any human male could think that it is a rational conscious human advice to claim authority to speak on behalf of animal life living naturally and present in their life forms, is what spiritual humanity argue about. The rights of a natural life.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But the word choice "Satanic" is significant, isn't it? Because it was ( according to Baha'i theology ) penned by a Manifestation of G-d? It seemed like there was a specific context a specific reason for using that word "Satanic" instead of "vanity and arrogance"?

My point is this: When I read the Book of Certitude recently, I read it understanding that it was a response to a specific person at a specific time. In that context, the word "Satanic" ( when it's used and how it's used ) has a literal meaning. It had a literal meaning to Ḥájí Mírzá Siyyid Muḥammad, didn't it? And the people and ideas who are called Satanic have a literal meaning, right? But it can also have a deeper more nuanced symbolic meaning to the wider audience? It's the symbol of the lower self, as you said?

That's the way it is for Torah and the Tanach in Judaism. There's a story that is being told literally, and, there are many layers of possible symbolic significance. The question posed in the OP is asking about what is literally happening in the story. And that is why looking at the literal meaning of the words is important in this thread. Whether or not the story itself is implausible or fantastical is irrelevant.

Of course plausibility is relevant. If were not relevant we wouldn’t have nearly 40% of adults in the USA denying basic science and claiming the earth to be less than 10,000 years old or the author of the Flintstones had it right with humans and dinosaurs living side by side. We wouldn’t have a mass exodus of people turned off religion in my country as its no less credible nor relevant. So what I think you meant to say was plausibility isn’t relevant to you as its clearly relevant to many others.

 

[dybmh]

Of course plausibility is relevant. If were not relevant we wouldn’t have nearly 40% of adults in the USA denying basic science and claiming the earth to be less than 10,000 years old or the author of the Flintstones had it right with humans and dinosaurs living side by side. We wouldn’t have a mass exodus of people turned off religion in my country as its no less credible nor relevant. So what I think you meant to say was plausibility isn’t relevant to you as its clearly relevant to many others.

This is a religious Q&A. Not a debate on science vs. religion. Your points are valid; they just seem out of place here.