tonyfish58

Welcome back

Life is like that, over the years I have had many a mind change.

Look forward to your posts

Regards Tony

ewlabonte

I don't feel it necessary to believe that the Master need be a master in the biological sciences. I still feel that he was wrong in his statements about the biological origin of man (in Some Answered Questions), but he wasn't speaking as a biologist, as I see it, but was responding to the tendency to see man solely as a product of blind forces. In any event, I'm not going to make this into an obstacle to my faith.

ewlabonte

I never meant to say that he never said anything that was consistent with modern evolutionary theory. I was specifically (very specifically if you read the whole discussion) refering to what he said about the origin of man in Some Answered Questions.

arthra

Thanks for sharing that...

Misbah

Trying to grasp, good discussion, go on.....

HarbingerSTG

I understand your plight as I myself am looking at a career in Biological Engineering, a field dealing with the creation, maintenance and restoration of ecosystems. I have taken flak for this changing of god's creation as you probably have for your belief that humans were not always human and share a common ancestor as other forms of life, but this is where I believe the harmony of science and religion comes in. My views on my "playing god" in the field of biological engineering is that the act is not wrong as god's will is behind all things. There are creationists out there, but as you are a science-minded individual those are not your views so perhaps it would help to not view humans as an end-point of creation, but rather view that all life is continually evolving. Evidence is provided in our immune systems, which have adapted to be able to handle diseases that would have been a plague upon the earth many thousands of years ago. Since we look at the humans who were not resistant to diseases such as smallpox as ancestors, humans different than humans now as ancestors, I believe it is right to believe that we share a common ancestor with other non-human forms of life, as we would also hope that whatever our successors be millions of years down the line will look to us as ancestors. Peace be unto you and may the day-star of creation shine on your doings!

arthra

Harbinger wrote:

"...humans were not always human..."

I think the Writings suggest humans were potentially human...even when they didn't appear in their present form... as in:

"Throughout this journey of progression he has ever and always been potentially man."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 63

And maybe we could suggest that "sentient life" is a broader more inclusive term than "human"?

Napkin

You must be talking about the part of the book where he says something along the lines of: "These theories are false".

I have very little doubt he was talking about Darwin. Then he talks about how if you take a apart a lamp now and put it back together a million years from now it would still be the same lamp?

I hear where you're coming from and this is why young educated people are not attracted to this religion. This is why when they go door-to-door teaching, they go to poor immigrant neighborhoods where the residents may not be up to date with basic scientific facts yet.

LordOfGoblins

THats a bit harsh.
But in any case the Bahais shouldnt 'target' particular populations. I dont think it is a good practice personally. Still, different ideas arise in order to find ways to best share the faith amongst receptive people, even if those ideas are not always the most inspired..

LordOfGoblins

Besides I think if Abdul'Baha laid all the science out as it really is so to speak, it would be no fun. We wouldnt be having this discussion and scientists wont need to discover the truths for themselves..
So instead its left more as a guidance rather than just stating all the things scientists can discover in the future.

Napkin

But he is disagreeing with. He denied it and called it false.

LordOfGoblins

Hopefully in the future the issue will become more clear.
Science is always discovering new truths..
Just check this out.

Aussie researchers rewrite Big Bang theory

armin

It won't be long for Science to acknowledge the Almighty God through logic. All the seen and the unseen will bow to Him.

As the maturity of humanity has arrived new horizons will appear and great changes will manifest ...

Napkin

Are u quoting the writings or do u talk like that in real life

Essence of GOD

i do believe in evolution.
unless we can prove humans have always existed, any notion except evolution does not seem plausible.

armin

It's ordained in accordance to the blade of utterance!

It's about the message the words are taking. I could have said the same thing in many different ways, but the other forms of expressing the meaning would not have left a lasting impression on passerby's the way it has according to your remark.

Napkin

Just out of curiosity, and I'm very sorry if this sounds a bit rude; did you learn English at the same time as taking Ruhi classes in English for the first time? We have some community members who came to the US and started taking ESL classes at the same time as Ruhi classes and they started talking like they're quoting scripture, all the time

Rani

I think it can happen to anyone when they are reading the Writings.

Recently I asked a friend -a baha'i friend, if they (would) "suffer me to recount" (something).. The something had nothing to do with the Faith, and I had a little laugh at myself a bit for choosing the phrase.

But that is not the English I grew up with of course. ;-)

LordOfGoblins

wow... this sortof blew me away!
You're right!
The smarter you are the greater it can be a barrier to God!
The more of a grammer master you are the more you might pride yourself over the writings rather than trying to sincerely throw yourself into the ocean!!!

----------------
The story is told of a mystic knower, who went on a journey with a learned grammarian as his companion. They came to the shore of the Sea of Grandeur. The knower straightway flung himself into the waves, but the grammarian stood lost in his reasonings, which were as words that are written on water. The knower called out to him, "Why dost thou not follow?" The grammarian answered, "O Brother, I dare not advance. I must needs go back again." Then the knower cried, "Forget what thou didst read in the books of Sibavayh and Qawlavayh, of Ibn-i-Hajib and Ibn-i-Malik, [1] and cross the water."
[1 Famed writers on grammar and rhetoric.] 52

The death of self is needed here, not rhetoric:

Be nothing, then, and walk upon the waves.

(Baha'u'llah, The Four Valleys, p. 50)

armin

This verse shall suffice every understanding heart.

"They who recite the verses of the All-Merciful in the most melodious of tones will perceive in them that with which the sovereignty of earth and heaven can never be compared. From them they will inhale the divine fragrance of My worlds—worlds which today none can discern save those who have been endowed with vision through this sublime, this beauteous Revelation. Say: These verses draw hearts that are pure unto those spiritual worlds that can neither be expressed in words nor intimated by allusion. Blessed be those who hearken."

Baha'u'llah

randalljazz

XXXVII. Blessed is the man that hath acknowledged his belief in God and in His
signs, and recognized that "He shall not be asked of His doings." Such a recognition
hath been made by God the ornament of every belief, and its very foundation.
Upon it must depend the acceptance of every goodly deed. Fasten your eyes upon
it, that haply the whisperings of the rebellious may not cause you to slip.

Were He to decree as lawful the thing which from time immemorial had been
forbidden, and forbid that which had, at all times, been regarded as lawful, to
none is given the right to question His authority. Whoso will hesitate, though it be
for less than a moment, should be regarded as a transgressor.

Whoso hath not recognized this sublime and fundamental verity, and hath failed
to attain this most exalted station, the winds of doubt will agitate him, and the
sayings of the infidels will distract his soul. He that hath acknowledged this principle
will be endowed with the most perfect constancy. All honor to this all-glorious
station, the remembrance of which adorneth every exalted Tablet. Such is the
teaching which God bestoweth on you, a teaching that will deliver you from all
manner of doubt and perplexity, and enable you to attain unto salvation in both
this world and in the next. He, verily, is the Ever-Forgiving, the Most Bountiful.
-- Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 86

Napkin

um, no! it never occurred to me that languages have anything to do with who we are.
You think non-English speaking people are the only people who understand God? r u crazy bro? God doesn't care what language you speak!

Ali

Our species - Homo sapiens, 100,000 years ago -was chosen by God as His representatives.

Fadl

I think some individuals could be more akin to our monkey cousins than others...of course this has more to do with evolution of the individual than of species...

Ali

I accept evolution completely!

IndistinctDreamer

Interesting Read, read the first page then just skipped to the last, but one input I may put in is that Science will never be able to fully unravel our history.

We may be connected genetically to apes dated back however long ago however science will not be able to analyse the spiritual DNA (metaphor) in that it cannot distinguish a being that has the ability to reflects gods qualities and one that does not.

mytmouse57

I think you're confusing the mechanism or process that brought about an emergent being (human), with the cause, or actuality of that being.

There is no inherent contradiction. When Abdul Baha was saying "species" in those passage -- he wasn't speaking in the biological sense of taxonomy.

In terms of taxonomy -- our species is Homo Sapiens -- that's not being disputed.

What Abdul Baha meant by species is "kind." As in human beings -- by virtue of our sapience, mind, intelligence, reason -- are not the same kind as animals. Just as animals are not the same kind as plants.

Yes, all kinds have common roots, so to speak, because it's all made of the same stuff. It all goes back to high-energy quarks.

For example, high energy quarks make up or at the end of the chain of composition of everything, including dogs. But, you would not try arguing that a dog is merely high-energy quarks, now, would you?

Likewise, one cannot rationally say humans are an animal species (in the sense of kind), merely because our physical bodies have roots, and still are rooted, in the animal world.

For extended, intelligent discussions on these matters, I recommend this website:

Common Ground, The Blog » Faith, Reason, Science and Religion

I urge you to visit it. Evolution in relation to the Baha'i teachings was recently discussed in great detail there.

Napkin

The best of Baha'i teachings: Do not listen to anyone's interpretation of the writings. Refer directly to the writings and don't be distracted by opinions, such as the ones posted above.

We have now come to the question of the modification of species and of organic development—that is to say, to the point of inquiring whether man’s descent is from the animal.
This theory[evolution] has found credence in the minds of some European philosophers, and it is now very difficult to make its falseness understood, but in the future it will become evident and clear, and the European philosophers[Darwin] will themselves realize its untruth. For, verily, it is an evident error.

mytmouse57

Incorrect.

Abdul Baha has not taking issue with the principle of biological evolution.

He was taking issue with the notion that the mechanisms of evolution force the conclusion that man is merely and only another species of animal.

Napkin

Thats your opinion and if you are a Baha'i, you dont get to shed your opinion on the writings to change their meaning. We have the writings we dont need personal opinions.

IndistinctDreamer

Looks like your being outplayed Napkin.
This is a forum. We come here to share opinions.

Napkin

Do you know anything about Baha'i? You do not get to put your own definitions on the writings. Thats one of the basics of Baha'i. Thats the reason there are no clergy or priests. Noone gets to tell you what any of the quotes mean. Looks like all you guys do on here is try to define the writings. I suggest you go back to the basics

ahanu

Sen McGlinn has already answered the question of Abdu'l-Baha's position on evolution:

Abdu'l-Baha wrote:


"the world of nature is an animal world. Until man is born again from the world of nature, that is to say, becomes detached from the world of nature, he is essentially an animal, and it is the teachings of God which convert this animal into a human soul. (Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 303)

"the animal, as to its body, is made up of the same constituent elements as man." (Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 152)


"... the beloved of God ... 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. ... The feelings are one and the same, whether ye inflict pain on man or on beast."
(Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 158)


The body of man is a captive of nature; ... In this physical world man is not distinguished from the animal.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 119)

the outcome of the mineral kingdom is the vegetable kingdom, the outcome of the vegetable kingdom is the animal kingdom and the outcome of the animal kingdom the world of man.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablet to August Forel, p. 13)


"The most noble being on the earth is man. He embraces the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms -- that is to say, these conditions are contained in him to such an extent that he is the possessor of these conditions and states;" (Some Answered Questions, p. 158)

etc... this is just a small sampling. My own mental modelling for Abdu'l-Baha's way of thinking is that he uses a 3-dimensional set theory. A subset (human being) within a set (animal) can nevertheless contain a property that transcends the properties of the set. Like a ziggurat, with the higher levels based on the lower and including them. Abdu'l-Baha would not I think say that man evolved from the animal, he would say man is an animal - and more. The 'more' is not explicable by DNA alone, and is a potential which can be developed to make the individual vastly superior to the animal, or considerably worse than an animal.

Napkin

Thank you Ahanu,

Bdulbaha believed we were animals....whats what I believe!!! its the one hting I ahave zero doubt about....that man is simply another specie of animal. Some animals are fast, some animals are large, this animal, man, is smart.

ahanu

Now you're oversimplifying things.

Abdu'l-Baha says:

Now, the animal perceives sensible things but does not perceive intellectual realities. For example, that which is within the range of its vision the animal sees, but that which is beyond the range of sight it is not possible for it to perceive, and it cannot imagine it. So it is not possible for the animal to understand that the earth has the form of a globe. But man from known things proves unknown things and discovers unknown truths. For example, man sees the curve of the horizon, and from this he infers the roundness of the earth.

Abdu'l-Baha elaborates on the power of discovery, a power animals do not possess:

The animal is the captive of the senses and bound by them; all that is beyond the senses, the things that they do not control, the animal can never understand, although in the outer senses it is greater than man. Hence it is proved and verified that in man there is a power of discovery by which he is distinguished from the animals, and this is the spirit of man.

This power of discovery is supernatural in relation to the animal. Humans also have the power to control nature, another power animals lack.

All things are subdued by the hand of man; he can resist nature while all other creatures are captives of nature: none can depart from her requirements. Man alone can resist nature. Nature attracts bodies to the center of the earth; man through mechanical means goes far from it and soars in the air. Nature prevents man from crossing the seas; man builds a ship, and he travels and voyages across the great ocean, and so on; the subject is endless. For example, man drives engines over the mountains and through the wildernesses, and gathers in one spot the news of the events of the East and West. All this is contrary to nature.

The sea with its grandeur cannot deviate by an atom from the laws of nature; the sun in all its magnificence cannot deviate as much as a needle’s point from the laws of nature, and can never comprehend the conditions, the state, the qualities, the movements and the nature of man.

Humans possess powers of the lower worlds, but he also possesses powers the lower worlds lack; therefore, humans are more than smart animals. For example, dolphins are smart animals, but we wouldn't say they belong to "the kingdom of man."

IndistinctDreamer

No ones defining anything but rather sharing their understanding of what something means hence why its called an opinion. An opinion isn't necessarily correct, its the understand an individual has come to.
I find it funny you say we have no clergy yet in another thread apparently quoting you directly.
"Clergy = facilitator"

Napkin

please don't quote me. My comments are copyrighted.

IndistinctDreamer

Sue me?

Napkin

I rather forgive you....cuz you're a girl

mytmouse57

Just saying something is opinion is, first, stating the obvious, and second, incredibly lazy.

To be effective, or even relevant, in an intelligent discussion or debate, one must offer good reason for why one's view (or opinion) is reasonable or tenable, and/or, why others with which one might disagree are not.