Infallibility

[Trailblazer]

So what did Baha'u'llah really mean when he claimed infallibility? That anyone who doubted even a single word ascribed to him was not to be considered a "faithful Baha'i" - or that everyone generally following his wise counsel would - without any shadow of doubt - receive the promised blessings? Is the Baha'i faith fundamentalist and intolerant or progressive and unprejudiced?

Those are good questions.
One thing I think He meant is that the Manifestations of God know more than we know, so if we think we know more than They do, we are in deep trouble. This is the problem that I see happening, and once you start going down that road it can go off on many different directions. How can there be any unity in the Baha'i Faith if Baha'is think they know more than Baha'u'llah? Where does it end?

What kind of Christian questions what Jesus said? I do not know any. Christians might not understand what Jesus meant but that is another story.

 

[siti]

How can there be any unity in the Baha'i Faith if Baha'is think they know more than Baha'u'llah? Where does it end?

But people nowadays do know more than people in Baha'u'llah's day - don't they? Why was it necessary for Baha'u'llah to come at all? Why wasn't Muhammad or Jesus enough? If they were infallible, what difference does it make what 'day and age' we are in?

For me - knowing that we do indeed know more than the so-called messiahs, prelates and prophets is the first step towards a true 'unity' or rather 'harmony' - knowing that we don't all have to sing the exact same notes at the same time - knowing that we all see reality differently and yet we are neither offended nor stumbled by another's conception of reality - those are the signs of maturity in human thinking...it doesn't mean we can be aloof and snooty about our knowledge - or even that we can just 'please ourselves' what to believe - but it does mean we can be accepting of other viewpoints and not judgmental and prejudiced about those who happen not to share our view.

My question is - if the Baha'i faith cannot tolerate differences of opinion internally, how can it possibly hope to foster 'unity' in the wider world?

I think we ('the world') have to learn that dissent does not need to equate to discord; disagreement does not need to equate to disharmony; and fallibility is not the same as failure.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think you need to rethink what Baha'u'llah might have intended by claiming infallibility

I see we have the choice we accept Baha'u'llah is infallible or we do not.

Baha'u'llah has said it is the God given elixer for this age, thus if it is, or if it is not is what the Quran offers as no compulsion in religion. The choice is ours.

I have accepted the Message is infallable guidance for this age and that is really all I can do, but to also live it as so.

I see no need for me to be able to answer the quote about copper and gold, I know that the wisdom and truth in this statement will be found and you can choose to see it how you choose to.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

My question is - if the Baha'i faith cannot tolerate differences of opinion internally, how can it possibly hope to foster 'unity' in the wider world?

This is a most important aspect in the faith, the clash of differing opinions is a must, as this is what opens the door to greater Truths.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

But people nowadays do know more than people in Baha'u'llah's day - don't they?

People know more, but if Baha'u'llah had the knowledge of God then Baha'u'llah knew more than any people.
When I said 'know more' I meant know better than Baha'u'llah about how we are to live. So if there are Baha'i Laws they would dispute with those Laws and think they know better. What's the point of having laws if Baha'is disregard them? As for the teachings and Laws, we just try to live up to them to the best of our ability, all the while admitting that if we fail, we are not perfect; but that does not negate the teachings or Laws as being the standard to which we try to attain.

Why was it necessary for Baha'u'llah to come at all? Why wasn't Muhammad or Jesus enough? If they were infallible, what difference does it make what 'day and age' we are in?

Because Baha'u'llah brought a new message and new social teachings and Laws that wee not revealed in past ages. The spiritual teachings of all of them were the same but many of those have been forgotten so Baha'u'llah renewed them.

For me - knowing that we do indeed know more than the so-called messiahs, prelates and prophets is the first step towards a true 'unity' or rather 'harmony' - knowing that we don't all have to sing the exact same notes at the same time - knowing that we all see reality differently and yet we are neither offended nor stumbled by another's conception of reality - those are the signs of maturity in human thinking...it doesn't mean we can be aloof and snooty about our knowledge - or even that we can just 'please ourselves' what to believe - but it does mean we can be accepting of other viewpoints and not judgmental and prejudiced about those who happen not to share our view.

I do not think we can know more than the Prophets, because they get their knowledge from God directly, and we cannot do that.

That does not mean that we cannot see reality differently from other people or that we shouldn't. No two people will ever agree on everything and that is fine, that is what makes life interesting. I do not think we should ever judge another person, but disagreeing is not judging. We can accept that other people have different viewpoints without agreeing with them, I do it all the time.

My question is - if the Baha'i faith cannot tolerate differences of opinion internally, how can it possibly hope to foster 'unity' in the wider world?

The Baha'i Faith has to be able to tolerate differences if it is to survive and maintain unity and set an example for anyone else. What we need to be able to do is be respectful when we disagree with others. If we have boundaries between ourselves and others we will not feel threatened by differences in opinion. Having good personal boundaries is the key. Courtesy is the other key.

I think we ('the world') have to learn that dissent does not need to equate to discord; disagreement does not need to equate to disharmony; and fallibility is not the same as failure.

Abdu'l-Baha said that and put it quite well:

“Consider the world of created beings, how varied and diverse they are in species, yet with one sole origin. All the differences that appear are those of outward form and colour. This diversity of type is apparent throughout the whole of nature.

Behold a beautiful garden full of flowers, shrubs, and trees. Each flower has a different charm, a peculiar beauty, its own delicious perfume and beautiful colour. The trees too, how varied are they in size, in growth, in foliage—and what different fruits they bear! Yet all these flowers, shrubs and trees spring from the self-same earth, the same sun shines upon them and the same clouds give them rain.....

Thus should it be among the children of men! The diversity in the human family should be the cause of love and harmony, as it is in music where many different notes blend together in the making of a perfect chord.....

Likewise, when you meet those whose opinions differ from your own, do not turn away your face from them. All are seeking truth, and there are many roads leading thereto. Truth has many aspects, but it remains always and forever one.

Do not allow difference of opinion, or diversity of thought to separate you from your fellow-men, or to be the cause of dispute, hatred and strife in your hearts.

Rather, search diligently for the truth and make all men your friends.” Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, pp. 51-53

Those are excerpts.... For the whole chapter: BEAUTY AND HARMONY IN DIVERSITY

 

[siti]

Do not allow difference of opinion, or diversity of thought to separate you from your fellow-men, or to be the cause of dispute, hatred and strife in your hearts.

Rather, search diligently for the truth and make all men your friends.

Right! So how do you square that with the House of Justice labelling liberal ways of thinking "immature conceptions" that "would bring to naught even the most worthwhile intellectual endeavour"? That doesn't sound much like they are trying to "make all men your friends" does it?

And in denegrating 'liberalism' they are not only disrespecting the words of Abdu'l Baha that you just quoted, but also throwing out one of the very tools they will need to employ if they really want to bring harmony into a world of diversity and difference - aren't they? And when some of you effectively told another poster he was not a 'real Baha'i' were you and your fellow Baha'is following the lead of the House of Justice or the wise counsel of Abdu'l Baha - because in this respect they certainly seem to be at odds - don't they?

 

[loverofhumanity]

The term "Baha'i" and especially the term "liberal" are just words - the UHJ does not get to define how non-members use them - even if it does look down its nose and dictate how you - as a "faithful Baha'i" may use them. That last paragraph, in its arrogant and condescending tone, just goes to show to any unbiased mind how utterly unprepared the UHJ is to promote any semblance of genuine "unity" among the diversity of humankind - just look at the words they use...and frankly, the Baha'i members rounding on @danieldemol the way the have in the last couple of pages of this thread simply underlines it. How can a group of people so utterly incapable of accepting a slightly different version of their own faith possibly hope to lead the world to religious unity? That they even imagine it could, it seems to me, is what should be labelled "an immature conception" - and on the basis of this discussion about turning copper to gold, I can't even imagine what possible contribution this faith might make to any "intellectual endeavour".

Now to put that into the context of this repeatedly revived thread - I think to imagine that any human is "infallible" is an "immature conception" and the very antithesis of "intellectual endeavour" - and frankly, the quality of argumentation of supporters of "infallibility" repeatedly proves both points.

We Baha’is have progressed and developed as a world community under the guidance of the Universal House of Justice without wars or dividing into thousands of sects like other Faiths and there is no more diverse cross section world community representative of all races, religions and nations existing in the world today.

As to its infallibility it’s clear to me it works unlike the outside world Where wars and division between races, religions and nations dominate.

You’re free to any criticism you feel valid but my life was transformed by the Teachings of this wonderful Faith and now I have a stable, well balanced joyous life with inner peace and contentment.

I have been a Baha’i for 45 years and married to a beautiful Burmese Baha’i for 40 years and had a wonderful marriage and life thanks to the teachings of Baha’u’llah.

 

[siti]

As to its infallibility it’s clear to me it works unlike the outside world Where wars and division between races, religions and nations dominate.

Dominate what IT? I am almost 56 and I have never fought in a war. War has not dominated my life...I am married to a woman of different ethnicity than mine and we currently share our home with an elderly Japanese Buddhist who found himself in dire financial straits. An unbelieving Englishman, a non-denominational Christian Fijian and a Japanese Buddhist all living together under the same roof for a year and a half - and we have not had a war yet. The way you write its as if this kind of thing would be impossible for a non-Bahai - but it would surely be more much difficult for a Baha'i to be married to a non-Bahai. I think that should tell you something.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Right! So how do you square that with the House of Justice labelling liberal ways of thinking "immature conceptions" that "would bring to naught even the most worthwhile intellectual endeavour"? That doesn't sound much like they are trying to "make all men your friends" does it?

And in denegrating 'liberalism' they are not only disrespecting the words of Abdu'l Baha that you just quoted, but also throwing out one of the very tools they will need to employ if they really want to bring harmony into a world of diversity and difference - aren't they? And when some of you effectively told another poster he was not a 'real Baha'i' were you and your fellow Baha'is following the lead of the House of Justice or the wise counsel of Abdu'l Baha - because in this respect they certainly seem to be at odds - don't they?

The concept we Baha’is believe in is unity in diversity and all the human race is included.

But membership which is completely voluntary in the Baha’i Faith has its own qualifications. Among these beliefs are the infallibility of the Manifestations.

This is only a requirement of Baha’i membership not the wider community.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Dominate what IT? I am almost 56 and I have never fought in a war. War has not dominated my life...I am married to a woman of different ethnicity than mine and we currently share our home with an elderly Japanese Buddhist who found himself in dire financial straits. An unbelieving Englishman, a non-denominational Christian Fijian and a Japanese Buddhist all living together under the same roof for a year and a half - and we have not had a war yet. The way you write its as if this kind of thing would be impossible for a non-Bahai - but it would surely be more much difficult for a Baha'i to be married to a non-Bahai. I think that should tell you something.

Simply pointing out that this Faith has been of immense benefit to people that’s all.

 

[Thief]

So when did this idea that a scripture or a prophet or a messenger or a pope is absolutely perfect in every way come into practice? Has it been there since early times, or is it more recent? What purpose does it serve?

What or who do you consider infallible, if anything?

As an eastern thinker and logical person, I don't get infallibility. To be clear, I understand what it means, I just don't get how anyone else could believe in it, yet I know some do. I just shake my head and go 'really?'

Here's an example. "I'm infallible. I said I was infallible, and since I'm infallible, it is only logical to conclude I'm infallible. I mean, how could an infallible person claiming to be infallible possibly be wrong?"

Does this sound logical to you?

I made a mistake …..once

and then later realized....I was mistaken

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, it will cause division, we can already see that happening on this thread..
The question is why some Baha'is need to coddle Baha'is who disagree with what Baha'u'llah wrote.
I think it is dishonest and not good for the Cause of God.

It would be different if they were new Baha'is and they were not deepened, but when the Writings of Baha'u'llah are presented to them and they still disagree with them, that is another matter.

So, how can you say that someone is a Baha'i if they do not believe that?

Infallibility of the Manifestations is a basic Baha’i belief. One can’t join the Faith unless they freely accept this concept.

 

[siti]

Simply pointing out that this Faith has been of immense benefit to people that’s all.

Simply pointing out that decent folks get on with their neighbours regardless of their respective religions (or lack thereof). Simply pointing out that some of us need no prophet to persuade us that getting on with our neighbours is a good thing. Simply pointing out that if your religion is all that prevents your members fighting each other on racial or religious grounds...

 

[loverofhumanity]

But people ARE black, white and brown - well actually they mostly various shades of brown really aren't they...but the point is, I don't see the point of denying a fact so obvious that it is as plain as the nose on one's face. There's a government sponsored TV advertisement where I live that suggests that even mentioning a person's ethnicity should be avoided because it leads to racial stereotyping...but how can we respect the ethnicity of a person if we never even mention it? It is silly - and "immature" - not to be able to discuss our differences with maturity and acceptance - it is, frankly, "immature" to insist that there is "only one" truth. And in the last few pages of this thread, I am sorry to say, Baha'is are looking more and more fundamentalist than even I gave them credit for before. I think you need to rethink what Baha'u'llah might have intended by claiming infallibility - because he obviously got a few things wrong - but did he really mean that he could not get anything wrong...or did he mean that following his spiritual guidance could not fail to bring the blessings promised? Nobody is going to die because Baha'u'llah was wrong about copper turning into gold...but if he was wrong about an afterlife, or about the "new social order" that will bring an end to racially- and religiously-motivated enmity, warfare and prejudice, that's a different kettle of fish altogether. So what did Baha'u'llah really mean when he claimed infallibility? That anyone who doubted even a single word ascribed to him was not to be considered a "faithful Baha'i" - or that everyone generally following his wise counsel would - without any shadow of doubt - receive the promised blessings? Is the Baha'i faith fundamentalist and intolerant or progressive and unprejudiced?

You make some very good points. To me it’s always been about the elimination of prejudices, world peace, unity and so on and I believe that His teachings will bring about that.

We’re not about things like ‘Jesus or Baha’u’llah is the ONLY way’.

The problem is this thread has been about infallibility so we got onto other topics not really important but I do see that His teachings on the oneness of all humanity as the kind of solution we need in order to create a peaceful Civilization where all are accepted.

 

[siti]

The concept we Baha’is believe in is unity in diversity and all the human race is included.

No it isn't. That is not a concept - its a slogan. Your UHJ has denounced liberalism (for example) as an "immature concept of life" - an undesirable "carry over" from the "non-Bahai" world - so how does that not exclude millions of liberals? This is just more of the same dishonest wrangling where you claim to be inclusive and tolerant whilst at the same time expressly and summarily rejecting the conscientiously held views of others. You do not seem to believe in unity in diversity at all, what you really seem to believe in is unity in uniformity - and that is never going to happen - even within the Baha'i faith, let alone outside.

 

[Thief]

where all are accepted.

won't happen

the conflict is what makes us interesting

 

[loverofhumanity]

No it isn't. That is not a concept - its a slogan. Your UHJ has denounced liberalism (for example) as an "immature concept of life" - an undesirable "carry over" from the "non-Bahai" world - so how does that not exclude millions of liberals? This is just more of the same dishonest wrangling where you claim to be inclusive and tolerant whilst at the same time expressly and summarily rejecting the conscientiously held views of others. You do not seem to believe in unity in diversity at all, what you really seem to believe in is unity in uniformity - and that is never going to happen - even within the Baha'i faith, let alone outside.

Then you I believe that if you want I’m not going to argue about it. I see it differently.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Simply pointing out that decent folks get on with their neighbours regardless of their respective religions (or lack thereof). Simply pointing out that some of us need no prophet to persuade us that getting on with our neighbours is a good thing. Simply pointing out that if your religion is all that prevents your members fighting each other on racial or religious grounds...

I personally believe that human beings are intrinsically good and born pure. I’m a great believer in the goodness of humanity.

 

[siti]

Then you I believe that if you want I’m not going to argue about it. I see it differently.

Argue about what? You can't post a quote that denounces liberalism saying you believe what it says and then say you're all about 'unity in diversity' - its an absolute contradiction - can you not see that?

 

[Trailblazer]

Right! So how do you square that with the House of Justice labelling liberal ways of thinking "immature conceptions" that "would bring to naught even the most worthwhile intellectual endeavour"? That doesn't sound much like they are trying to "make all men your friends" does it?

Actually, the UHJ was not labeling liberal ways of thinking, they were saying that the Baha'is who use misleading and invidious labels like "traditionalists" and "liberals" divide the Bahá'í community. They were not trying to make any friends with that statement.

And in denegrating 'liberalism' they are not only disrespecting the words of Abdu'l Baha that you just quoted, but also throwing out one of the very tools they will need to employ if they really want to bring harmony into a world of diversity and difference - aren't they?

They were not denigrating liberalism, they were saying it was immature for Baha'is to divide Baha'is up into liberals and traditionalists, pointing out that is the way of the world, that division is a carry-over from non-Bahá'í society.
Baha'is can be diverse and different yet still united in the common cause if they are mature enough to accept the differences of other Baha'is.

And when some of you effectively told another poster he was not a 'real Baha'i' were you and your fellow Baha'is following the lead of the House of Justice or the wise counsel of Abdu'l Baha - because in this respect they certainly seem to be at odds - don't they?

I was questioning whether he was a real Baha'i if He did not believe in what Baha'u'llah wrote about infallibility but I had no right to do that and I can now see that I was wrong. He has a different conception of Baha'u'llah but if he believes in Baha'u'llah he is a Baha'i since the only requirement to be a Baha'i is believing in Baha'u'llah. If all Baha'is had to believe the same exact things in the same exact ways, then there would soon be no Baha'i Faith.