Sen McGlinn

No such inference was intended: I am not a victim. Similarly in your message #64, you said "Your statement above is a veiled criticism which infers you have done nothing wrong ..." . I did not intend to imply any such thing.

You say that "Disenrollment is as serious a sanction as we can get as a Baha'i.... ". So far as I know, disenrollment is not classified by the UHJ as a sanction, it is not something that happens because one has broken a Bahai law, or been disobedient, or caused disunity, so far as I know. For that sort of thing, we have the sanction of the complete or partial suspension of administrative rights. Disenrollment seems to be a different kind of thing: my best guess is that it is a general evaluation of the character of a person and their suitability for membership in the Bahai community.

I do not say that I have never done anything wrong - quite the opposite, I have fallen short often, and I pray for forgiveness and try to do better. Many other Bahais, who have not been disenrolled, will also say (while avoiding confessions!) that they have done wrong. Nobody I think would say I am the greatest sinner among the Bahais, or that I am a saint. What I do say is that "doing something wrong" is the wrong tag, the wrong category, to apply to disenrollment. I may be wrong about that, but given that I do think that disenrollment is not a sanction, I trust you will see that the implications and inferences you read in my words were not what I intended readers to understand. I am sorry to find that even one reader -- yourself -- was led to those conclusions.


~ Sen

Sen McGlinn

Jesus is also called "The Son" in the Bahai Writings. The question is not the title, but what is meant by it. Divine Sonship in Jewish and pagan cultures at the time of Christ had a meaning, which should be taken into account without limiting the meaning of the Christian doctrine to that.

Another starting point is to ask what Jesus meant when he called God, Father: "my Father" and "our Father." What kind of God is this, what kind of relationship to God is this? How does it contrast to other views of God (what is he arguing against, by speaking this way)? Then perhaps you will discover that what he meant by divine Sonship, is not so difficult to accept.

~ Sen

Iconodule

Sen the meaning of the word Son of God is not my point. Jesus said he was the son of God. Would you walk up to him and contradict him and still expect to follow him? Context is everything Sen. Btw pagan parrelel thesis sucks.

LordOfGoblins

We do not believe there is a contradiction.
Jesus also said stars will fall to the earth. We do not believe that is not true, we support it. But we do not take it to be physically true.
So if Jesus came up to any Bahai and said "I am the son of God" no Bahai would dispute him, we would nod our heads.
Likewise if Jesus was to say "I am a messenger or a reflection of God", we would agree.
How can you prove that Jesus would reject our understanding of his sonship, despite repeating over and over that it must be taken literally?
Esp in light of a lot of statements in the bible, like people getting up and walking around after being raised from the dead, being far more plausible as a non-literal (but spiritual) event.

ahanu

So can a person be a Baha'i without believing in the Virgin Birth and supernatural miracles, Sen?

I believe the Founding Figures are infallible--correct--on essential doctrines, such as progressive revelation, accepting the Manifestation of God, and working to make a "global village." As for non-essential doctrines (Virgin Birth and supernatural miracles), I do not accept these because they are not proofs for the Manifestation of God. Notice that, though there are proofs for God, the prophets, and some scientific issues, nobody offers proofs for miracles. I'm not an enrolled Baha'i, so I'm not very familiar with how the UHJ would handle my views. I've often thought about declaring, but I've been unable to do so solely on the "Virgin Birth" issue.

Iconodule

Ahanu do you recognise your divinely inspired leaders taught and affirmed the virgin birth? Are you saying they weren't inspired by God in this regard and were mistaken?

Lord, you seem to have completely misunderstand my point, very well I will go to the example I am doing right now ( I had hoped to avoid this ). Could you still recognise Ahanu as loyally following the Bahai and yet rejecting what your founders taught? Can you contradict your founders? Yes or no. No bahai seems to want to answer this.

ahanu

Another reason the Baha'i Faith accepts the Virgin Birth could be because Christians and Muslims agree on this issue. I bet if these two major religions were divided on the Virgin Birth, Baha'u'llah would have interpreted it a different way. Shoghi Effendi or Abdu'l-Baha don't take issue with it for the same reasons, I think.

He has "cast into the fire" everything that stands in the way of world unity between the major world religions. The purpose of the Baha'i revelation is world unity. The seed of religion was planted with "Adam," and the "Supreme Manifestation" of this cycle is Baha'u'llah, whose purpose is the unite the world as one country. Who knows what kind of seed the next Manifestation of God will plant? What kind of universal cycle will be created? I think this hints at a change in our species, and a new mission. But that is simply my speculation.

Iconodule

Ahanu were you divinely inspired messagers wrong? Is there an official list of what of their writings are infallible and what is not? I thought all the Bahai corpus must be considered perfect as since Baha'u'llah was a perfect Mirror of God he must therefore be perfect and sinless himself.

ahanu

Refer to post #42, Iconodule. I know you're anxious to catch me in contradiction. I probably am. I probably can't declare myself as a Baha'i, as I have long wanted to do . . .

In my view, the Manifestation of God affirms a Virgin Birth because humanity isn't ready for the next step in its evolution. Abdu'l-Baha likens the the culmination of human history to a man entering his maturity, and so I think there is still a lot to learn. We aren't at a stage where we can sum up human cognitive evolution through cultural stages. I can't tell you what it would be like to be a first century Jew and what it would be like to see through his eyes during that time. What was it like to think in Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic in the first century? How would that influence my thought--along with the culture I live in? We can't answer these questions to say that, if we were to take off the cultural lens and objectively look at what happened, "Yes, a person really witnessed a Virgin Birth during the beginning of Christ's life." While the Baha'i Faith is about unity, maybe the next religion will be able to answer more advanced questions, such as, "Did supernatural miracles happen in human history?"

Just my speculation.

Iconodule

It seems as if you could be the gnostic alternative to Orthodox Bahai.

ahanu

Well, I don't want to draw any followers after me by causing disunity, so I will leave this forum, if other Baha'is think that is the best thing to do, as CP already thinks.

Sen McGlinn

That depends what it is you have rejected. If you explained what you mean by the virgin birth, I may well find that I do not believe that either. Yet I am a Bahai.

My understanding of the virgin birth is shaped by a source-critical approach to the New Testament, which not only puts the various stories in the order of formation (old stories first, later formulations such as the virgin birth later), but also asks what the first Christians were saying about Christ, and other questions, through these stories. The stories are narrative theology, not history. I think I understand what the Christians were saying with the genealogy of Christ, and the virgin birth story, and it is very much in line with Bahai theology.

Perhaps if you asked them, they would clarify (elucidate) the question. What I know is what Shoghi Effendi wrote, in the Promised Day is Come:

He is equally forthright in rejecting the incarnation, yet some Christians think that the Divinity of Christ automatically entails incarnation. He believes that the Bible is not fully authentic, but some Christians think its inspiration automatically implies authenticity. He asserts the primacy of Peter, but says that the "...the Edifice which the Fathers of the Church reared after the passing of His First Apostle was an Edifice that rested in nowise upon the explicit directions of Christ Himself." He asserts the salvific power of Christ's sacrifice, but not in any of the ways that have been formulated in Christian theologies. He names the miracle stories, but focuses on what the stories are saying about Christ and the life of faith, rather than on the literal content of the story. In short, Bahais have many doctrines in common with one or other branch of Christianity, but their understanding of their meanings may not match those contained in Christian doctrinal statements.

Yeshua

Oh ahanu please do not leave this forum ever. I have learned so much from our past debates and I think that you are a wonderful spiritual brother. You bring a lot to this forum I frankly do not care if you choose to believe or not believe in the virgin birth. I care about you as a spiritual brother and seeker.

Fadl

This Baha'i doesn't think that's best at all.

You are most welcome to think feel and discover what you may and be yourself.

I'm sure you no doubt will anyway, even without my permission!

Yeshua

Amen! Let us not let the doctrine of the virgin birth become a source for division.


“...I think you would agree that the ecumenical movement has reached a critical juncture. We must guard against any temptation to view doctrine as divisive and hence an impediment to the seemingly more pressing and immediate task of improving the world in which we live...A harmonious relationship between religion and public life is all the more important at a time when some people have come to consider religion as a cause of division rather than a force for unity...The world's religions draw constant attention to the wonder of human existence. Who can help but marvel at the power of the mind to grasp the secrets of nature through scientific discovery? Who is not stirred by the possibility of forming a vision for the future?...The universality of human experience, which transcends all geographical boundaries and cultural limitations, makes it possible for followers of religions to engage in dialogue so as to grapple with the mystery of life's joys and sufferings. In this regard, the Church eagerly seeks opportunities to listen to the spiritual experience of other religions. We could say that all religions aim to penetrate the profound meaning of human existence by linking it to an origin or principle outside itself...”

- Pope Benedict XVI, Papal Visit to Australia 2008, address to Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist religious leaders

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndependentInvestigator While I admittedly am speaking in an area where I lack knowledge, I wonder: is it either appropriate or authorized in the teachings of Baha'u'llah to personally shun someone who has not been authoritatively shunned by the Universal House of Justice?

It should be noted that is an EXTREMELY rare event: one invoked only in extremis.

Anyone is free to leave the Faith, and there's no problem still associating with someone who does.

There are lesser punishments (imposed at a lower level), in particular loss of administrative rights either temporarily or until some specific problem is corrected. Again, we're fully free to associate with these people even during such a circumstance.

And even those who may ultimately be condemned as covenant-breakers to be shunned are very thoroughly counselled and the error of their ways explained in detail to them before any of this can happen! It's only those few who remain intransigent who are finally given this designation, and even then our scriptures are very clear about the reasons why this shunning (which yes, they do authorize) is necessary and regrettably desireable.

So please don't think of this as a common thing: it's definitely not!

Peace,

Bruce

InvestigateTruth

Believing in Virgin Birth of Jesus, is not a requirement to be enrolled as a Baha'i. That's because, Baha'u'llah or any of the central figure or UHJ, did not make that a requirement.

In order to be enrolled in the Baha'i Faith, we don't have to perfectly follow every thing that is in the Scriptures, and I don't believe there is any Baha'i who just 100% follows the Scriptures. Everyone is free to interprete the verses for themselve the way they want even if it is totally different form Baha'i Scriptures. The limits is just if someone is harmfull to the faith, or becoming a covenant-breaker, or not accept those requirements as set by UHJ.

ahanu

Belief in an all-powerful God does not up the probability of supernatural acts--just as if I was to announce, "The Earth is flat!" does not up the probability the Earth is flat. Now the existence of an all-powerful God ups the probability of supernatural acts; however, this does not 100% guarantee God manipulates the laws of nature for special occassions.

Then, if God is a moral being, altering the laws of nature as It pleases, then why does God allow millions of people to die of starvation? Or will you say God's morals are beyond human morals? That there is a wisdom in God feeding thousands during Jesus' time (and not our time)? If God is a moral being, why does God not provide more proof for unbelievers? If God is a moral being, why does the God of the Israelites act like a tribal deity?

Those are a few questions off the top of my head.

ahanu

And how do you know the tomb was empty? Why do you assume these ancient narratives are relating historical facts?

Who?

Do you have the writings of the first disciples, or Jesus himself? What facts lead you to assume that is what "resurrected" meant in the first place?

ahanu

Yes, but Sabbatai Sevi was also said to work miracles too, showing legendary development can happen quite suddenly despite the apologists' claims legendary development could not have happened between Jesus' life and the writing of the Gospels. Well, this is all assuming you do not accept Sabbatai Sevi worked miracles . . .

ahanu

So how do you explain Mark 6: 14-16? It says:

"King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, "John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

Others said, “He is Elijah.”

And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”

But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”

While N. T. Wright argues nobody would of believed an individual could be resurrected before the general resurrection, this one verse says otherwise. Price was right when he observed: "Can Wright really be oblivious of how this one text torpedoes the hull of his argument?"

ahanu

So how do you explain magic in the old testament? Saul is said to have went to the witch of Endor, who he asked to call the ghost of Samuel. Here are a few passages from 1 Samuel 28:

Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in his own town of Ramah. Saul had expelled the mediums and spiritists from the land.

The Philistines assembled and came and set up camp at Shunem, while Saul gathered all Israel and set up camp at Gilboa. When Saul saw the Philistine army, he was afraid; terror filled his heart. He inquired of the LORD, but the LORD did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets. Saul then said to his attendants, “Find me a woman who is a medium, so I may go and inquire of her.”

“There is one in Endor,” they said.

So Saul disguised himself, putting on other clothes, and at night he and two men went to the woman. “Consult a spirit for me,” he said, “and bring up for me the one I name.”

But the woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?”

Saul swore to her by the LORD, “As surely as the LORD lives, you will not be punished for this.”

Then the woman asked, “Whom shall I bring up for you?”

“Bring up Samuel,” he said.

When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!”

The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid. What do you see?”

The woman said, “I see a ghostly figure coming up out of the earth.”

“What does he look like?” he asked.

“An old man wearing a robe is coming up,” she said.

Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

ahanu

So did Paul write about a physical resurrection?

Sorry, Paul, the earliest source we have, does not mention an empty tomb.

ahanu

Richard Carrier's theory on Paul's view of the resurrection is not a "crackpot position." Carrier said:

I debated it with theology scholar Jake O'Connell in 2008 (see On Paul's Theory of Resurrection: The Carrier-O'Connell Debate). Two professional judges assessed it as a draw, meaning my theory cannot be ruled out even by the best possible case against it.

Besides Dennis MacDonald and David Instone-Brewer, Carrier lists other scholars who accept his theory:

James Tabor, "Leaving the Bones Behind: A Resurrected Jesus Tradition with an Intact Tomb" in Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry (forthcoming); Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography (2005), pp. 57-58; Peter Lampe, "Paul's Concept of a Spiritual Body" in Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (2002), edited by Ted Peters et al.: pp. 103-14; Gregory Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (1995); Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (1995); Adela Collins, "The Empty Tomb in the Gospel According to Mark" in Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology (1993), edited by Eleonore Stump & Thomas Flint: pp. 107-40; and C.F. Moule, "St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection," New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 106-23. Many others think it's likely or at least possible

Carrier's belief that Jesus never existed has nothing to do with Paul's view of the resurrection.

ahanu

Abdu'l-Baha is reported to have said: "If religion becomes the source of antagonism and strife, the absence of religion is to be preferred." The rise of atheism is due to religious fundamentalism, I think. As for his belief Jesus never existed, it does not have anything to do with Paul's theory of resurrection (as I said before).

ahanu

Yes. Any religion that humanizes us is a divine movement. Any religion that makes humans more compassionate is a divine movement.

ahanu

"Buried" and "raised" indicates an empty tomb? Hmm . . . Seems like a leap of faith to me.