Infallibility

[Dawnofhope]

Baha'is and others who came later often just discard or reinterpret verses like this to suit their own agenda, and they do it with relative ease. After all, their own teaching is infallible, lol.

The Infallibility of the Universal House of Justice

It’s easy to take one or two principles of any religion, remove the context, and create a distorted picture. That’s what Christian and Islamic apologists do when they want to denigrate the faith of another.

The Baha’i Faith teaches that the overriding principle is all truth is relative, not infallibility.

The fundamental principle enunciated by Baha’u’llah, the followers of His Faith firmly believe, is that Religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the non-essential aspects of their doctrines and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society. – Shoghi Effendi, Summary Statement – 1947, Special UN Committee on Palestine.

No Faith is Final - Religious Claims to Absolute Truth

 

[Vinayaka]

It’s easy to take one or two principles of any religion, remove the context, and create a distorted picture. That’s what Christian and Islamic apologists do when they want to denigrate the faith of another.

The Baha’i Faith teaches that the overriding principle is all truth is relative, not infallibility.

The fundamental principle enunciated by Baha’u’llah, the followers of His Faith firmly believe, is that Religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the non-essential aspects of their doctrines and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society. – Shoghi Effendi, Summary Statement – 1947, Special UN Committee on Palestine.

No Faith is Final - Religious Claims to Absolute Truth

Adrian, if infallibilty is to be downplayed, then why not rid the organisation of it altogether? I find here that you, unlike many Baha'i here do like to downplay or ignore the controversial aspects. So can you say you don't believe in infallibility then? That would be quite unBaha'i of you.

 

[sojourner]

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?

Papal infallibility was adopted during Vatican I, 1869. The term is “speaking Ex Cathedra,” or, “from the chair” (where the Pope sits in ecclesial authority).

The parameters defining infallibility are quite narrow; the Pope can’t just decide to speak infallibly on a whim, or on any subject.

I believe there exist only two Ex Cathedra statements: that concerning the Immaculate Conception, stated in 1859 and grandfathered in following Vatican I, and that concerning the Assumption of Mary, promulgated in 1950. That’s it.

 

[sojourner]

God's word in the original manuscripts is infallible

No it’s not.

 

[Windwalker]

God's word in the original manuscripts is infallible

What infallible source told you that? Is that in the Bible, that the "original manuscripts" are infallible, or is that something somebody else made up in the last 100 years that you believed because it sounds good to you?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Adrian, if infallibilty is to be downplayed, then why not rid the organisation of it altogether? I find here that you, unlike many Baha'i here do like to downplay or ignore the controversial aspects. So can you say you don't believe in infallibility then? That would be quite unBaha'i of you.

I avoid mentioning anything about the principle of infallibility as it creates confusion and misunderstandings.

Can the Universal House of Justice make a mistake? Of course it. How can that be if it is ‘infallible’? It relies on having the correct information to begin with. If it doesn’t the decision may not be the best one. The academic paper you linked makes a distinction between acquired and essential infallibility. The Universal House of Justice only has acquired infallibility, and unlike the Manifestations of God can not be omniscient at will.

It’s a rabbit hole I prefer to avoid but as you asked lol

 

[Windwalker]

I personally have investigated the writings, teachings and life of Bahaullah, and found no errors in them.

And your judgement is infallible?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And your judgement is infallible?

Have you looked at the Sun in the clear sky at noon? Can you say, recognizing the Sun in the clear sky requires infallible judgement? To me, the divinity of Bahaullah is as clear as the Sun.

 

[CG Didymus]

Non-Bahai source would be for exampke the writings of E.G. Browne.


I have already explained. Think of it this way: someone is making a claim. He can be honest or liar. You need to find out. You read different documents and sources. From Himself. From His enemies, and others. You carefully and without bias examine all the evidences. Then judge fairly for yourself if this person is honest or a liar.
Hope that helps...
Good luck now.

All religions make claims. Followers of those religions I would suppose are being honest when they tell others about their religion. But what do you do with the contradictions that come up? How do you decide which truth is The Truth? We aren't infallible and do get fooled now and then.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

All religions make claims. Followers of those religions I would suppose are being honest when they tell others about their religion. But what do you do with the contradictions that come up? How do you decide which truth is The Truth? We aren't infallible and do get fooled now and then.

You should give an example of the contradictions you are talking about, but For me it works differently. I don't decide. I just rely on the explanation given by Abdulbaha. Once the divinity of Bahaullah became clear to me, I just rely on Him to teach the truth.

 

[Marcion]

For me, Siva wasn't a person, or an anthropomorphic God, so the question isn't applicable. For me, the Lingam is the closest I can get to what Siva is.

But as for perfection, I do believe the world is in a perfect state of evolution. Maya is there, but at the core of everything, Brahman, the unmanifest, is perfect. But that's far different than infallibility from the OP.

For me Lord Shiva was a real historical personality (without a lot of the mythical elaborations of later periods) and He lived His life exactly the way He planned it because He was Taraka Brahma and was not born bound by any inborn samskara's as ordinary humans are.

Nevertheless I also dislike this discussion about infallibility. However I do understand the desire of people to have an ideal personality or ideal scriptures that they can fully trust as their beacon of light in a confusing world.

 

[Skwim]

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?

Sure it sounds logical. I'm the Grand Pooh Bah of Poppadom, and how better to keep my minions in line than convince them that in my exalted position as benevolent protector, and keeper of the Royal Whip, every utterance I emit is worthy of veneration and unquestioning acceptance. And how do I do this? By announcing my infallibility. Moreover, all writings I deem to be infallible shall be just that: without error ........................and maybe scared...........................Yeah, sacred. That's what they'll be, both sacred and infallible. Including my collection of comic books, from Maus to Nimona to Saga; soon to be assembled as Thee Holy Writ, of which nothing else shall be deemed greater.

.

 

[Jedster]

For me Lord Shiva was a real historical personality (without a lot of the mythical elaborations of later periods) and He lived His life exactly the way He planned it because He was Taraka Brahma and was not born bound by any inborn samskara's as ordinary humans are.

Nevertheless I also dislike this discussion about infallibility. However I do understand the desire of people to have an ideal personality or ideal scriptures that they can fully trust as their beacon of light in a confusing world.

I know the feeling.
Many decades ago, I followed a Guru who I believed to be absolutely perfect, infallible.plus many other titles.
When I used to give satsang, I would say this.
On one occasion, someone shouted out "What happens if he would trip over?", to which I unflinchingly answered , "then it would be a perfect trip". That did't even dent me, at the time.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

God is infallible, but as you know it is a Baha'i belief that a Manifestation of God is also infallible. The unity of God means that God and His Manifestation are one and the same, so both are infallible. That belief is based upon the following passage. The invisible, inaccessible, unknowable Essence is God.

“The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 167​

 

[Trailblazer]

Nah. Only cats are infallible.

If you mean cats can do no wrong, I agree.
Even when they do wrong, they are not wrong.
Cats are picture purrrrfect.

 

[Marcion]

I know the feeling.
Many decades ago, I followed a Guru who I believed to be absolutely perfect, infallible.plus many other titles.

I would never say my Guru was infallible as I dislike the term because it creates dogma's in the minds of people. Even the Guru in physical form has to function within the limitations of bodily functions and the circumstances He moves around in. But it is not the body nor the limitations of time, place and person that the Guru stands for, the real Guru is not a constantly changing entity as a person with a human form necessarily has to be. When the Guru takes a human form, that is not Nirguna Brahma, the creative entity beyond the guna's (pure Cosmic Consciousness) nor is He entirely bound by the guna's (Saguna Brahma) but He comes from the tangential line between Nirguna Brahma and Saguna Brahma in the form of the mysterious Taraka Brahma.

Of course there are many types of gurus or teachers, but not all of them are Taraka Brahma.
I would say only Nirguna Brahma is infallible, as everything happens exactly as per His imaginative projection, but to say that is quite meaningless because He/It is beyond our comprehension.

 

[Jedster]

I would never say my Guru was infallible as I dislike the term because it creates dogma's in the minds of people. Even the Guru in physical form has to function within the limitations of bodily functions and the circumstances He moves around in. But it is not the body nor the limitations of time, place and person that the Guru stands for, the real Guru is not a constantly changing entity as a person with a human form necessarily has to be. When the Guru takes a human form, that is not Nirguna Brahma, the creative entity beyond the guna's (pure Cosmic Consciousness) nor is He entirely bound by the guna's (Saguna Brahma) but He comes from the tangential line between Nirguna Brahma and Saguna Brahma in the form of the mysterious Taraka Brahma.

Of course there are many types of gurus or teachers, but not all of them are Taraka Brahma.

My post was meant to illustrate how strong the feeling of believing in the infallibility, can be.
I appreciate what you have written and will answer the rest of your post in the private dialogue(soon), as I think it may detract from the OP.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I avoid mentioning anything about the principle of infallibility as it creates confusion and misunderstandings.

Can the Universal House of Justice make a mistake? Of course it. How can that be if it is ‘infallible’? It relies on having the correct information to begin with. If it doesn’t the decision may not be the best one. The academic paper you linked makes a distinction between acquired and essential infallibility. The Universal House of Justice only has acquired infallibility, and unlike the Manifestations of God can not be omniscient at will.

It’s a rabbit hole I prefer to avoid but as you asked lol

I don't know much if any about the UHJ so this comes out of ignorance. What is the relationship between The UHJ the messengers if the former is fallible and the latter not?

I don't see it as a bad thing if it is or not; to each his own. If the former is not, by what reasons do you follow the UHJ?

If it is, what is the relationship between the UHJ and god to make that so?

 

[Vinayaka]

I avoid mentioning anything about the principle of infallibility as it creates confusion and misunderstandings.

Can the Universal House of Justice make a mistake? Of course it. How can that be if it is ‘infallible’? It relies on having the correct information to begin with. If it doesn’t the decision may not be the best one. The academic paper you linked makes a distinction between acquired and essential infallibility. The Universal House of Justice only has acquired infallibility, and unlike the Manifestations of God can not be omniscient at will.

It’s a rabbit hole I prefer to avoid but as you asked lol

Don't you think avoidance of the touchier issues is a form of deception though?. I've read statements like ...."If I'd have known about that when I joined up, I would have never joined up?" I'm personally for full disclosure on such matters. What do you think?

 

[Vinayaka]

I know the feeling.
Many decades ago, I followed a Guru who I believed to be absolutely perfect, infallible.plus many other titles.
When I used to give satsang, I would say this.
On one occasion, someone shouted out "What happens if he would trip over?", to which I unflinchingly answered , "then it would be a perfect trip". That did't even dent me, at the time.

You have experience with the mind-set at least. Makes for a better understanding of where people are coming from on this. I've never met anyone claiming to be infallible, and as Ymir advised, I would have run ... fast. A long time ago we encountered a few folks who were all agog over the Guru you referred to. I must say there was a certain oddness in any discussion, So too with certain members of the Sai groups. Not all, just some. When the name is tossed out as the equivalent of God ... well, my suspicious warning bells go off.