Sin

[nPeace]

Regarding the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, in Some Answered Questions Abdu’l-Baha said:

“We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol.”

He then goes onto explain one of the possible meanings of the story: 30: ADAM AND EVE

Then he concludes by saying “This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover the others.”

Reminds me of the individuals at John 6:52-60
It's interesting, I find, that Baha sought to put a symbol meaning to everything he thought made no logical sense, and yet, it would make sense if the symbolism is utilized correctly, without obscuring everything else.

 

[Trailblazer]

You base that on what... you own belief / view / idea?

tamam: to be complete or finished
Original Word: תָּמַם
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: tamam
Phonetic Spelling: (taw-mam')
Definition: to be complete or finished

These are the generations of Noah Noah was a just man and perfect [/ complete / blameless] in his generations and Noah walked with God
אֵ֚לֶּה תֹּולְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו אֶת־ הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים הִֽתְהַלֶּךְ־ נֹֽחַ׃

The Hebrew word tamam (תָּמִ֥ים), is used to refer to both God, and man.
Deuteronomy 32:4 Interlinear: The Rock! -- perfect is His work, For all His ways are just; God of stedfastness, and without iniquity: Righteous and upright is He.

2 Samuel 22:31
HEB: הָאֵ֖ל תָּמִ֣ים דַּרְכּ֑וֹ אִמְרַ֤ת
NAS: His way is blameless; The word
KJV: his way [is] perfect; the word
INT: God is blameless his way the word

Psalm 19:7
HEB: תּ֘וֹרַ֤ת יְהוָ֣ה תְּ֭מִימָה מְשִׁ֣יבַת נָ֑פֶשׁ
NAS: of the LORD is perfect, restoring
KJV: of the LORD [is] perfect, converting
INT: the law of the LORD is perfect restoring the soul

Ezekiel 28:15
HEB: תָּמִ֤ים אַתָּה֙ בִּדְרָכֶ֔יךָ
NAS: You were blameless in your ways
KJV: Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways
INT: were blameless in your ways

The writers understood the use of the word perfect - complete.
God is perfect - complete - in the absolute sense. Man is perfect - complete - in the relative sense.
It is no different to how we use other words, for example, truth.

Man was made in the image of God so man is capable of being perfect but only God is perfect. Any man who was perfect would not sin, but you said all men are sinners.

King James Version
Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

By the way, Baha'is believe that Noah was a Prophet and a Manifestation of God, so He was a perfect man.

I thought Bahaullah referred to the Bible, and acknowledged Moses, and the prophets, including Jesus Christ.
The Bible
The Four Gospels were written after Him [Christ]. John, Luke, Mark and Matthew - these four wrote after Christ what they remembered of His utterances.
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)

...the Torah that God hath confirmed consists of the exact words that streamed forth at the bidding of God from the tongue of Him Who conversed with Him (Moses).
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)
Is this accurate?

Yes, it is accurate.

A Bahá'í View of the Bible

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts

If it is, isn't it clear that Bahais are divided?
They don't even agree on the Bible. So how can the claim that Bahaullah is a manifestation and messenger of God, be true.

Baha'is are not divided, we just have differing opinions about the Bible, but we do not have different beliefs regarding the Bahai Faith so we are not divided the way Christians are divided over Christianity's beliefs. For example, all Baha'is believe the same things about the human soul and the spiritual world and what will happen when we die, and we all believe that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God and we all believe in the other Manifestations of God such as Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Very importantly, it is because we all adhere to the Covenant of Baha'u'lalh that we are not divided and never will be:

The Bahá’í Faith began with the mission entrusted by God to two Divine Messengers—the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh. Today, the distinctive unity of the Faith They founded stems from explicit instructions given by Bahá’u’lláh that have assured the continuity of guidance following His passing. This line of succession, referred to as the Covenant, went from Bahá’u’lláh to His Son ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and then from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to His grandson, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice, ordained by Bahá’u’lláh. A Bahá’í accepts the divine authority of the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh and of these appointed successors.

Bahá’u’lláh and His Covenant | What Bahá’ís Believe

We know of God's dealings with Israel from the Bible, and Moses' writings, so if you do not appreciate the Bible as God's word, your foundation evidently seems very weak.

We do believe the Bible is God's testimony because that is what Baha'u'llah wrote, but that does not mean it is God who wrote the Bible; it was men who wrote it, mean who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Moreover. just because we believe it n the Bible that does not mean we believe everything is literally true, some of it is figurative.

Would that not clearly reveal Bahaulla's origin? (Matthew 7:15 ; Matthew 24:11)

I think you ought to speak for yourself.

I certainly will speak for myself. It is completely illogical to say that just because Jesus warned us there would be false prophets Baha'u'llah was a false prophet. It is so illogical. If you do not know why I will explain it to you. There have been many false prophets and that is why Jesus warned us there would be false prophets. But just because there were many false prophets that does not mean all prophets are false, and it does not mean that there would not be one true prophet.

That is like someone saying that you should not buy a car from a certain car dealer because he has a lot of junky cars, but that does not mean there are no good cars at that car dealer. There might be one really good car. This is logic 101 stuff so when Christians repeatedly cite those verses to mean that Baha'u'llah has to be a false prophet I have to conclude that Christians lack logical abilities; either that or they have been taught so well by the Church that Jesus is the only way and nobody could ever come after Him so they cannot even see the biblical prophecies that clearly demonstrate that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ and the Messiah.

To say that some prophets are false therefore all prophets are false is called the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization:

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern

1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.

For example, if a person travels through a town for the first time and sees 10 people, all of them children, they may erroneously conclude that there are no adult residents in the town.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

So if a person sees 100 false prophets he might erroneously conclude that there is no such thing as a true prophet.

 

[Trailblazer]

Reminds me of the individuals at John 6:52-60
It's interesting, I find, that Baha sought to put a symbol meaning to everything he thought made no logical sense, and yet, it would make sense if the symbolism is utilized correctly, without obscuring everything else.

It should remind you of that because those verses are clearly symbolic. I mean nobody ever literally ate the flesh of Jesus or drank His blood.

The Adam and Eve story does make logical sense when utilized correctly. It is when it is believed as a true story and certain conclusions are drawn that it makes no sense. For example, to believe that humans were created to be immortal and live in the same body forever on earth, and if Adam and Eve had not eaten the apple everyone would have lived forever on earth in the same body in a paradise, is the biggest fantasy ever hoisted on an unsuspecting humanity. And because people believe that they draw other beliefs from it that are fantastical, like bodies rising from graves and living on earth forever when Jesus returns.

 

[blü 2]

So can you explain how not having one thing or other makes one faulty, or blemished.

As I said, ignorance of relevant things is a blemish. You don't want to put your money in a bank if the manager has no concept of right and wrong, for instance.

Eve ate the fruit at a time when she couldn't tell right from wrong. Since God imposed that ignorance on her, no one can accuse her of choosing to do wrong, deciding to sin, since she had no idea what wrong or sin were. This changed when she ate the fruit of course, but the same was still true of Adam when he ate the fruit ─ he too was incapable of wrong, of sin.

And sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, are nowhere in the text. No, God is quite frank about why he kicked them out ─

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" ─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.​

For example, say Adam and Eve are perfect. Would Eve not having testicles make her imperfect?

If we consider Eve to be, as the story says, the first female H sap sap, then her having testicles and lacking ovaries would be a major design fault / blemish / imperfection, yes.

Does Adam and Eve not being like God,make them imperfect?

The God of the Garden story is a long long way from perfect ─ his untrue claim that if you ate from the tree you'd die the same day (2:17), and changing his story about the tree from Don't eat from it, it'll kill you (2:17), to Don't eat from it because I said so (3:11), and from his petty, vindictive, Trumplike punishment of Eve, that thereafter human birth should be painful (3:16), and of course his ignoble motive for kicking them out (above, 3:22-23).

Adam and Eve were not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and bad, because they were not created with the right to decide for themselves what is good and bad.

That last bit isn't in the story ─ in particular they were never told, Don't make your own choices ─ but if it were, it would underline their innocence of the charge.

Rather than submit to this, Adam and Eve rebelled against that authority.

Nope. Each was incapable of that when each ate the fruit.

What blemish is their fault? They both knew it was wrong to take fruit from the one tree.

If there's one thing the story is perfectly clear about, it's that they did NOT and could NOT know it was wrong to eat the fruit.

On the contrary, the account of Adam and Eve sinning against God, is supported by scriptures running fro Genesis through to Revelation.

I'm not defending the NT. I'm defending the Garden story against the NT. It does NOT say what Christians keep wanting it to say. Paul can't change that. Augustine of Hippo can't change that. Nor you nor I can change that. It is simply so.

 

[Audie]

Well, at least we agree that I indeed don't 'pretend' God made an illustrative list of basic moral laws, but rather could state simply that he has done so, where it to come up as a topic. Few Christians cover their hair that I've seen (they generally have a more full and meaningful understanding of the intent of that example in from that time and place -- simply about modesty vs ostentatious display), but you certainly are free to cover or not cover your hair in any manner you choose in any of the 50 or so churches of about 8 denominations I've been in over the decades. Here's something more firm: we are specifically instructed not to judge each other.

I was refraining from being tiresome with a
longer list of things "god" (is said to) find immoral.
Hair is one of many examples of arbitrary and capricious moral laws, that as you note, even " believers" don't believe.
Cruelty to animals gets no mention.

Tell me of something your God introduced
that was not apparent to societies unaware of its purported existence? Other, that is, than
stuff about not eating oysters or worshipping nobody but him, being a jealous god.

 

[Audie]

It should remind you of that because those verses are clearly symbolic. I mean nobody ever literally ate the flesh of Jesus or drank His blood.

The Adam and Eve story does make logical sense when utilized correctly. It is when it is believed as a true story and certain conclusions are drawn that it makes no sense. For example, to believe that humans were created to be immortal and live in the same body forever on earth, and if Adam and Eve had not eaten the apple everyone would have lived forever on earth in the same body in a paradise, is the biggest fantasy ever hoisted on an unsuspecting humanity. And because people believe that they draw other beliefs from it that are fantastical, like bodies rising from graves and living on earth forever when Jesus returns.

Don't you have equally fantastical beliefs?

 

[WalterTrull]

Preachy? Informative seems more accurate. After all, it's only 30 seconds long.

For you, 30 seconds. For me...? Ah well. Besides... I get my daily bread.

 

[WalterTrull]

Man was made in the image of God

Ya know... I've started to think that man is the image of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hair is one of many examples of arbitrary and capricious moral laws, that as you note, even " believers" don't believe.
Cruelty to animals gets no mention.

It does get mentioned in the Baha'i Faith.

“Briefly, it is not only their fellow human beings that the beloved of God must treat with mercy and compassion, rather must they show forth the utmost loving-kindness to every living creature. For in all physical respects, and where the animal spirit is concerned, the selfsame feelings are shared by animal and man. Man hath not grasped this truth, however, and he believeth that physical sensations are confined to human beings, wherefore is he unjust to the animals, and cruel.

And yet in truth, what difference is there when it cometh to physical sensations? The feelings are one and the same, whether ye inflict pain on man or on beast. There is no difference here whatever. And indeed ye do worse to harm an animal, for man hath a language, he can lodge a complaint, he can cry out and moan; if injured he can have recourse to the authorities and these will protect him from his aggressor. But the hapless beast is mute, able neither to express its hurt nor take its case to the authorities. If a man inflict a thousand ills upon a beast, it can neither ward him off with speech nor hale him into court. Therefore is it essential that ye show forth the utmost consideration to the animal, and that ye be even kinder to him than to your fellow man.”
Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, pp. 158-159

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't you have equally fantastical beliefs?

Nope, not unless you consider our beliefs about the journey of the soul fantastical. We all view things differently. I think people in graveyards rising from physical graves and their flesh being reconstituted into a glorified physical body is a fantastical belief because it goes against science. My beliefs don't go against science, they are just outside the purview of science.

But you might still view my beliefs about the afterlife as fantastical.
This short video should help you determine whether you think my beliefs are fantastical or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ya know... I've started to think that man is the image of God.

If man was, we'd all be in better shape.

 

[Audie]

It does get mentioned in the Baha'i Faith.

“Briefly, it is not only their fellow human beings that the beloved of God must treat with mercy and compassion, rather must they show forth the utmost loving-kindness to every living creature. For in all physical respects, and where the animal spirit is concerned, the selfsame feelings are shared by animal and man. Man hath not grasped this truth, however, and he believeth that physical sensations are confined to human beings, wherefore is he unjust to the animals, and cruel.

And yet in truth, what difference is there when it cometh to physical sensations? The feelings are one and the same, whether ye inflict pain on man or on beast. There is no difference here whatever. And indeed ye do worse to harm an animal, for man hath a language, he can lodge a complaint, he can cry out and moan; if injured he can have recourse to the authorities and these will protect him from his aggressor. But the hapless beast is mute, able neither to express its hurt nor take its case to the authorities. If a man inflict a thousand ills upon a beast, it can neither ward him off with speech nor hale him into court. Therefore is it essential that ye show forth the utmost consideration to the animal, and that ye be even kinder to him than to your fellow man.”
Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, pp. 158-159

Good for that philosophy.

I do find the writing though to be intolerably verbose. I read fast, but lose patience in that stuff. Both the affected style and the sheer number of words used for a simple idea.

Its like, "guys, I have thought of and written down every possible permutation on this concept., I've done your thinking for you."

 

[Audie]

Nope, not unless you consider our beliefs about the journey of the soul fantastical. We all view things differently. I think people in graveyards rising from physical graves and their flesh being reconstituted into a glorified physical body is a fantastical belief because it goes against science. My beliefs don't go against science, they are just outside the purview of science.

But you might still view my beliefs about the afterlife as fantastical.
This short video should help you determine whether you think my beliefs are fantastical or not.

I'd have to have a more complete view of your sense of what's real but all of the supernatural
things people believe seem about equal in the fantastical dept.

People being reincarnated from an incorruptible bone is just as reasonable as any other godpoof.

 

[Trailblazer]

Good for that philosophy.

I do find the writing though to be intolerably verbose. I read fast, but lose patience in that stuff. Both the affected style and the sheer number of words used for a simple idea.

Its like, "guys, I have thought of and written down every possible permutation on this concept., I've done your thinking for you."

I like his writing style. I guess it is just a matter of tastes.

I don't see how it doesn't leave any room for thinking, but of course I fully agree with him, especially about animals being unable to lodge a complaint with the government as humans can.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd have to have a more complete view of your sense of what's real but all of the supernatural
things people believe seem about equal in the fantastical dept.

People being reincarnated from an incorruptible bone is just as reasonable as any other godpoof.

That is a good point, you'd have to have a more complete view in order to really understand.

Reincarnation makes no sense to me, but that is because of my beliefs about the purpose of this life and what happens in the next life, which is really only a continuation of this life, the difference being there is nothing physical nor do we have a physical body in the spiritual world. I see no reason why we should come back to this life to develop further if we did what we are enjoined to do in this life, and besides, we can continue to progress infinitely in the spiritual world. The following article gives a good overview of the afterlife beliefs of Baha'is.

Death and Dying in the Bahá'í Faith

 

[Audie]

I like his writing style. I guess it is just a matter of tastes.

I don't see how it doesn't leave any room for thinking, but of course I fully agree with him, especially about animals being unable to lodge a complaint with the government as humans can.

It leaves some room for thinking, sure, but do you see my point?

Wouldn't it be awful to go to heaven and suddenly have all mysteries suddenly and fully explained?

Curiosity, what do you like about his style?

 

[Audie]

That is a good point, you'd have to have a more complete view in order to really understand.

Reincarnation makes no sense to me, but that is because of my beliefs about the purpose of this life and what happens in the next life, which is really only a continuation of this life, the difference being there is nothing physical nor do we have a physical body in the spiritual world. I see no reason why we should come back to this life to develop further if we did what we are enjoined to do in this life, and besides, we can continue to progress infinitely in the spiritual world. The following article gives a good overview of the afterlife beliefs of Baha'is.

Death and Dying in the Bahá'í Faith

You see nothing fantastical about belief in these rather remarkable and 100% unevidenced things?

 

[Trailblazer]

It leaves some room for thinking, sure, but do you see my point?

No, not really. What is your point?

Wouldn't it be awful to go to heaven and suddenly have all mysteries suddenly and fully explained?

I don't think that is what will happen, there will still be mysteries, but we will know a lot more than we know now, as the spiritual world is the world of lights. However, I think what we will see will depend upon the state we are in at death, how far we have advanced spiritually in this world.

Curiosity, what do you like about his style?

I like how it is very descriptive and I like his use of analogies.

 

[Trailblazer]

You see nothing fantastical about belief in these rather remarkable and 100% unevidenced things?

No, I don't. What I consider illogical is that atheists expect to have verifiable evidence of a spiritual world from a material world vantage point. How would that even be possible?

However, there is evidence that comes through NDEs and through those who have communicated with souls who have crossed over to the spiritual world. In the preface to the first book listed below he explains how that communication was verified.

The Afterlife Revealed

Private Dowding

 

[Audie]

No, I don't. What I consider illogical is that atheists expect to have verifiable evidence of a spiritual world from a material world vantage point. How would that even be possible?

However, there is evidence that comes through NDEs and through those who have communicated with souls who have crossed over to the spiritual world. In the preface to the first book listed below he explains how that communication was verified.

The Afterlife Revealed

Private Dowding

How indeed, and what dimbulb of a atheist thinks as you suggest?

And yet you offer, um, "verified" physical
evidence!

Thing is, for me, and I think I speak as would
atheists who formulate their ideasca bit,
I, we, gotta have SOMETHING besides dreams
and wishes and stances to base a belief!

That is all just vapourware.

And as a basis for thinking all this detail
down to whether animals can go to court,
was told to Mr. B by the creator of the universe?

THAT is utterly fantastical, if anything qualifies!