Yeshua

Amen

Cataphatic (sometimes spelled kataphatic) theology is the expressing of God or the divine through positive terminology. This is in contrast to defining God or the divine in what God is not, which is referred to as negative or apophatic theology. They are both equally valid ways of referring to and comprehending the Divine.

As John of the Cross, explainining the equal weight given to cataphatic (God-in-anthropomorphisms) and apophatic (God-as-beyond-knowing) in Christianity:

"Saint John of the Cross speaks of God in many ways. Most basic is God as eternal, infinite Being. Present in the simplicity of God's unique, changeless being are innumerable attributes such as infinite beauty, infinite wisdom, infinite goodness, and infinite light. By contrast with the infinite being of God, creatures are nothing. In His own divine essence, God is incomprehensible and inaccessible, insusceptible of being limited or measured by human experience, totally beyond the powers of human understanding and imagination. Although he uses anthropomorphisms when speaking of God (e.g., He is angry with some persons and pleased with others), he sees God as incomprehensible, indescribable, and ultimately unknowable except to Himself" - Carmelite nuns of Eldrige

They are in harmony with each other! We are ironically and paradoxically ALL right! God is in Essence apophatic (unknowable) but he becomes cataphatic through his actions throughout history, most of all through his Prophets. That is why we have the Essence/Energies distinction in Eastern Christian thought.

As Baha'i Jack McLean writes:

"Bahá'í theology is both apophatic (negative) and cataphatic (affirmative). An abstruse, apophatic negative theology of a hidden God is explicit as background to Bahá'í theology. Apophasis rejects defining God and honors God by remaining silent about the divine essence. If apophasis does speak of God, it does so by via negativa, by describing God through a process of elimination of what God is not, rather than making affirmations about what God is. The main substance of Bahá'í theology, however, is manifestation theology or theophanology, that is, a theology calculated upon an understanding of the metaphysical reality and teachings of the divine Manifestation. This manifestation theology is cataphatic. Cataphasis dares to speak about God but recognizes that God transcends the human analogies used to describe divinity"

And see this essay: THE BACKGROUND AND CENTRALITY OF

"Any student of the Bābī and Bahā'ī religions will readily come to realize that the doctrine of the unknowability of the ultimate Godhead is foundational. One can only say what God is not or use negative (apophatic) language. The incomprehensibility of the nature of the Divine Essence (dhāt; dhāt al-dhāt) is, in one way or another, frequently celebrated in Bābi and Bahā’ī Scripture -- the extensive Arabic and Persian writings of Sayyid `Ali Muammad the Bāb (1819-1850) and Mārzā Ḥusayn `Alī Bahā'-Allāh (1817-1892), the founders of the Bābī and Bahā’ī religions respectively. In their writings apophatic ("negative") language is quite frequent. 1 No Bahā’ī systematic theology could be written without locating the ultimate Divinity beyond the infinite cosmos and totally beyond human knowledge.

Any Bahā'ī theology would however, identify the Manifestation of God as the locus of His indirect "knowability". While the Divine Essence is the centre of negative (apophatic) theology, the person of the Manifestation of God, who is born from age to age to communicate the Divine Will to humankind, is the centre of a positive, an affirmative (cataphatic) theology of nearness and knowability of God. It is by virtue of this that the Divine immanence is realized without incarnation but through the perfect manifestation of the divine Names and Attributes in nature, humanity and in the loving Fatherhood of the Manifestation / Messengers of God"

The only difference between Christianity and the Baha'i Faith is that in Christianity God becomes knowable most fully through the Incarnation, whereas in the Baha'i Faith it is through the Manifestation.

To sum up, let me quote the Tom Ryan, commenting on a book by the Catholic novelist Cormac McCarthy which deals with spiritual negation:

"...Negation figures centrally in the spirituality of the 16th-century discalced Carmelite St. John of the Cross. His The Ascent of Mount Carmel states, "To come to the possession of all, desire the possession of nothing. To arrive at being all, desire to be nothing," and so on.

This approach, an example of the via negativa, suggests that God is nothing, or rather no thing, and that life with God entails leaving behind everything that distracts from it.."

Yeshua

I want to add one more "thing" (no pun intended )

We Christians regard the Gospel of John as being divine revelation. In this Gospel it is written:

"All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being" (John 1:3)

If "ALL" things were brought into being by God then God cannot possibly be a "Thing" unless we are to conclude that God actually created Himself, which is illogical - not to mention heretical - because God is eternal and this would actually suggest a time when God did not exist, when God wasnot yet "God". We must then conclude that the Bible is correct - God created "ALL" things and "not one THING came into being" without him. God thus is "No-Thing" because he is before "ALL things" which he created.

Baha'u'llah said it better than ANYBODY:

All-praise to the unity of God, and all-honor to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things

Baha'u'llah affirms that God created "ALL THINGS". It is thus surely binding on Baha'is to accept that if God created "ALL things" then he cannot be a "thing" or else he must have created himself and so cannot be Eternal and Absolute?

Baha'u'llah even says that God created the "reality" of all things, that is "existence" - clearly implying God then is not confined to reality/existence and does not "exist" at least in the way we understand existence in our universe. God is so exalted that he is beyond our comprehension.

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. "The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know".

These "atheist" scientists thus affirmed God. I think they are actualy theists without knowing it. They affirmed that before the Big Bang there was "nothing", "No-Thing" - an it without space, time, matter or energy - a nothing (No-Thing) which the scientists admitted is "unknowable" (ie they "don't know"), that is we cannot ever comprehend this Infinite "nothing" with our "something" finite mind.

This "no-thing", as the scientists admitted, then proceeded to create or rather give birth to "All things", the entire universe, reality and existence itself complete with space, time, matter and energy. This "No-Thing" must then be concious, to my mind, for it to have the will and mind to create "something" out of "nothing" it must be Being, Infinite, Superessential Being - Concious Being.

For something to come out of "nothing", tells us that the original "No-Thing" must be concious, must be the Supreme Being we call God.

That's what I would tell an atheist. God doesn't exist. There was nothing before the Big Bang. This nothing is Infinite Being, pure conciousness, unconditioned by any-Thing and preceding all-Things. This Being is God - the Supreme Nothingness which preceds and gives birth to all things.

Fadl

That's like saying Baha'is have cookies and Christians have biscuits, no?

I guess that's how the cookie/biscuit crumbles.

Yeshua

Indeed But my biscuit is not more delicious than your cookie. Its a matter of taste buds. I see it as being each to their own. If I enjoy biscuits and you enjoy cookies, well - we all enjoy food!

So the underlying reality is one - God. However how God reveals himself to us, whether through physically assuming in his Essence a fleshly body or reflecting himself through a human intermediary, is different in both religions. I do not think that this difference can be reconciled, nor should it be. We Baha'is and Christians agree on so many things and we worship the same God. All you have said today Fadl proves to me that you and I, as well as everybody on this forum, worships the same God. Our understandings of that God and how he reveals himself to humanity differ, but our understandings are that: Human understandings.

No religion and no person has ever fully comprehended the Divine. And so no religion or person's view is superior to another, since none can boast of fully comprehending God. That being said, this understanding of underlying unity does not mean that we have to relinquish our respective differences ie that I believe in Incarnation and you believe in Manifestation.

Love in Christ brother

tonyfish58

Yeshua - We have no idea or concept of God and very very little understanding of creation, except as told by the prophets. To try to break God down into an understanding and an explanation to prove Gods existence, at this time in mankind's history is not possible.

The most great infallibility has spoken and directed mankind to its next step in its evolution.

The important thing at this time is to accept Baha'u'llah teachings and start building the world anew. The one fold with the one shepherd. Ring the bells no longer for He who is the Promised One has come.

When we accept Baha'u'llah we also accept that God is unknowable, unexplainable and no matter what we try to imply it and play with words to explain it, it will never be right

Fadl

Aren't you British? I assumed so, since you are in the UK. Cookie is American for what British call biscuits, so I meant to say it's actually the same thing.

In all seriousness, my wife was an atheist for years, who became a Baha'i on our pilgirmige together-talk about miracles! Really! But that's another story. I wanted to say that, in my experience, atheists are simply not dummies. They may be hopelessly materialistic in their world view, but their arguments are intelligent, and many of the points they make are sound and correct, and, if we thiests would have our God given consideration, we need to listen to them, and acknowledge them where they are right, and from it adopt a more sophisticated notion of God, rather than argue. The theists are very often so wrong while ultimately right, and the athiests are very often so right, yet ultimately wrong.

When I acknowledge that the God I believe in and worship really does not exist at all, after they stop looking at me as if I were batty, they start to listen. These are clever people, and when they begin to understand the sort of God I'm talking about, there is really nothing for them to say. They can choose to believe or not to believe, but it is at least a God that is not succeptible to the logical arguments they have used to effectively slay the much weaker God that entirely too many have put their faith in.

Yeshua

LOL

In Britain we have cookies and we have tea-biscuits. That's what I thought you were saying! haha My apologies, I had a blonde moment there

I agree whole-heartedly with what you have written above. Atheists are not dummies. I can 100% understand why someone would be atheist. And yes we can certainly learn from them

We should reject nothing that is good and true no matter what philosophy or belief system it crops up in.

And truly that is miraculous! So few atheists seem to be convinced by the arguements of theists.

This I think is because we still have "believers" who really do think that the earth is flat and was created in seven days, although mercifully the Baha'i Faith is radiant exception in this regard!

Yeshua

Amen

This proves the unity of religions, you are correct! You and I come from different nations and different religions. Your background of understanding is the Baha'i Writings and those of the Sufi mystics, whereas mine is that of the Christian mystics. The same light of truth illuminates both of these streams.

Look at this quote from the Master Abdu'l-Baha:

"Most regrettable of all is the state of difference and divergence we have created between each other in the name of religion, imagining that a paramount duty in our religious belief is that of alienation and estrangement, that we should shun each other and consider each other contaminated with error and infidelity. In reality, the foundations of the divine religions are one and the same. The differences which have arisen between us are due to blind imitations of dogmatic beliefs and adherence to ancestral forms of worship."

Now compare it with this quote from Nicholas of Cusa, a Catholic Cardinal living in the 1400s:

"Diversity in creation and cultures is the language of God; the radical unity of the opposites. In God absolute unity is absolute multiplicity. It is you O God who is being sought in various religions in various ways and named with various names. For you remain as you are to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it then sword, jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious faiths" (Cusanus 1401-1464

They both teach the same basic truth!

The Bible confirms this, in the Apostle Paul's epic speech before the Areopagus (legislative and debating forum) in the Greek city Athens, intellectual capital of the First Century:

"...While Paul was waiting for them in Athens...some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, "What does this babbler want to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities." (This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.) So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means." Now all the Athenians and the foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but telling or hearing something new. Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, "Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way...The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one blood every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring.'Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man..."

God loves the diversity of peoples, with all their unique cultures and religious beliefs. This passage tells us that God in his plan of salvation "determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitations" and that he did this so that these different peoples, with very different cultural beliefs "would seek God" and actually find Him and arrive at an understanding of the Truth which is the One Truth which unites all people! To show the Athenians that they actually worship the same God as Paul - a Jew - does and to prove that God inspired Athenian religion, Paul quotes from two of their poets Aratus and Epimenides. These inspired men taught that:

1. In God every person "lives and moves and has their being"
2. That we are all children of God regardless of race, creed, social class or gender

In quoting these Pagan writers, Paul shows these truths to be innate to human nature and ALL cultures and faiths.

That is why Pawnraider amazes me. In Vatican II the Catholic Church, on the basis of these biblical truths, infallibly affirmed for Catholics what had been taught by Christian mystics for two thousand years.

Since this in the interfaith forum, I am going to show what true, biblically based, Apostolic Christianity actually teaches about other religions:

From: Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-christian religions - Nostra Aetate

DECLARATION ON
THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

"One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth.(1) One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men,(2) until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.(3)

Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?

2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men...The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men."

I challange Pawnraider to deny the Truth of the above based upon his understanding of the Bible.

Fadl

Beautiful!

And naturally I was quite struck by this: Might not this day, the day of Baha'u'llah, be that very day?

By the way, that the Pope said such profound and unifying words doesn't surprise me in the least. After all, one of the finest introductory pamphlets to the Baha'i faith I have seen anywhere, is actually published by the Catholic church!

Yeshua

Yes I was hoping you would notice the "glory of God" part my friend I wonder then if, when this infallible Declaration was translated into Arabic, if the word "Baha'u'llah" would actually have been used? After all that is the phrase for "glory of God" in Arabic isn't it?

So in effect you might have a Dogmatic Declaration from the Catholic Church, authored under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which effectively says in Arabic:

"...One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men, until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with Baha'u'llah, where the nations will walk in His light..."

Could almost have been written by a Baha'i if translated thus

Nostra Aetate - which in latin means "In Our Age" - is an infallible declaration of the Catholic Church. It can never be revoked and stands for as long as the Catholic Church stands, since it has the Holy Spirit for its ultimate author, according to Catholics.

However, although the mandate for Nostra Aetate was commissioned by Pope John and Proclaimed officially by Pope Paul, the document was not written by the Popes.

Nostra Aetate was prepared and written by Catholic theologians and religious experts - most of whom were Bishops and Cardinals assembled for the Council - on the express command of the Pope who had expressed his wish that an infallible, dogmatic, authentic document be composed that would set forth authentic and irrevocable Catholic teaching on other faiths. The completed document was then brought before the Council Fathers who represented Bishops from every nation on earth. A series of sessions and debates were held in which every Bishop and Cardinal of the Church offered criticisms, ammendments, approvals or rejections of the document. Then the final draft of the document was held up to a vote. If the document received approval from the entire teaching authority of the Catholic Church assembled in the Vatican in 1965, then it would be Catholic doctrine. This is because Christ said that whatever the Church collectively assents to or "binds" on earth is also bound in heaven.

The document was then assed by a vote of 2,221 to 88 of the assembled bishops and this declaration was promulgated on October 28, 1965, by Pope Paul VI as inspired by God.

That is how the Council works. As you can see the Catholic Church works more democratically than people think

And yes I've read that pamphlet! Its very well written. At school it was taught to us from a young age, as well as the other pamphlets on Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. and readings from the Catechism and Nostra Aetate on other faiths such as this one on Muslims, which if you go to the link above comes from later on in Nostra Aetate:

"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. [The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims]. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom"

Please read the whole of Nostra Aetate! Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-christian religions - Nostra Aetate

Its a cracking document and is authored undr inspiration from the Holy Spirit, according to Catholics, making it very useful when discussing with Catholics or other Christians!

Fadl

Yeshua,

This might all be some foolishness that I picked up on the History chanel some years ago, but isn't there some prohecies, perhaps from Catholic saints or mystics about the popacy, and how Pope (I forget the name or number) would be the last Pope? If true, that's very interesting in light of what you posted above. If it's one of these nonsense superstitious tales, in the vein of Nastrodumus, 2012 type stuff...what you posted is still interesting!

Yeshua

Hey

The world of Catholic prophecy is vast. There are many prophecies about Popes and the future of the Church. One of them, attributed to Saint Malachy, is comprised of a list of Popes. The Prophecy of the Popes, attributed to Saint Malachy, is a list of 112 short phrases in Latin. They purport to describe each of the Roman Catholic popes (along with a few anti-popes), beginning with Pope Celestine II (elected in 1143) and concluding with a pope described in the prophecy as "Peter the Roman", whose pontificate will end in the destruction of the city of Rome. However this does not represent authentic Catholic prophecy, according to most Catholics - including myself.

These prophecies are notorious and are widely considered fakes that have nothing to do with the real St. Malachy and were authored long after his death.

However the secular media can't help itself and just loves ancient, esoteric mysteries that point towards some kind of "doomsday" scenario, so they lap it up for all its worth.

The mainstream academic theory is that the "prophesy" is a forgery written several centuries after the death of St. Malachy. St. Malachy lived in the twelfth century, and his alleged prophecy magically appeared 400 years later without ever having been heard of before then. All of the descriptions before it was suddenly "found" are remarkably accurate (Sixtus IV was described as "a minorite fisherman;" his father was a fisherman, and he was a member of the Franciscans, also known as the Minorites); all of the ones after it became public, not so much (Gregory XIV is only described as "Of the antiquity of the city;" if you want the prophecy to be true, you'll accept "Well, Milan is a city, his dad was a senator there, and the word 'senator' is related to the word for old man" as proof).

The first time the prophecy is mentioned is on a handwritten account by patriarch Alfonso Chacón (a.k.a Alphonsus Ciacconus, 1540–1599) in 1590 (this account would be later published, in 1595, by the abovementioned historian Arnold de Wyon); in this account, Chacón only comments the prophecies until the papacy of Urban VII (whose papacy only lasted September 1590, and was the current pope at the time Chacón wrote the comment). According to Feijóo, Chacón, who held a great intellectual prestige at the time, was lured to comment the prophecies by someone who wanted to help cardinal Girolamo Simoncelli (1522–1605) reach the papacy.

So sorry Fadl but unlike other Catholic prophecies this one is a fake

There are real Catholic prophecies though about a Great Monarch who is to come and will create a just world order and unite all of mankind. "A peace without precedent" is predicted.

And these prophecies actually come from the writings of Catholic saints!

Fadl

Yes, yes, I remember now, it was Malachy. I think I heard about it first whilst watching some show about alien abductions on the History chanel. What about the prophecy of a Great Monarch, then?

Yeshua

See this thread: 24 Guardians

Go to my first post in the thread, which is post number 6, to read a number of extracts from a few of these Catholic prophecies that I collected for Lunitik. He wanted to read them for some reason, I can't quite recall Some of these prophecies are actually BY Popes themselves.

See aldso post 8, which has another prophecy.

There fascinating I'm sure you will agree! Remember though they were written hundreds even over a thousand years ago, so the cultural context in which they were written has to be taken into consideration when interpreting them. Also, although these holy people obviously did see genuine visions, nobody can know whether these predictions are "accurate" in any way about our future.

Robertus

Well this thread got hijacked hahaha.

Fadl, I understand your p.o.v. on the "existence" or "non-existence of God" I just really don't think that it is a helpful perspective to bring to a conversation.

Also Yeshua, those prophecies are awesome! Is their a good resource on them?

Fadl

Well, I've used this "p.o.v." because in my experience it works well with atheists and cuts through the mental gymanstics and logical hairsplitting and wrangling so that the heart of the matter can be approached, and the heart of the matter is where it's at. Besides that, the ontological argument that started this thread is fallacious so it seemed a good idea to explore some other options.

PS. It's not only a p.o.v. It's logical, and consistent with Baha'i teachings, so I wonder on what basis you would say such a thing. To say it to a believing thiest may be superfluous, but believers aren't usually who we're talking about when it comes down to logical proofs of God, now is it?

Yeshua

You are welcome!

There are some great books by Catholic scholars which have collected these prophecies. The one which I have is called, "Songs and Prophecies of the Great Monarch". Sadly I think it might now be out of print, however if you do a search on google you will hopefully be able to find it!

Another book is by a man called Yves Dupont. He's French and its a great translation he has of all these prophecies. However I would warn you to ignore his commentary - he is a notoriously Tradionalist Catholic with some very antiquated views. Anyway, he wrote a book called "THE GREAT MONARCH AND THE GLORIOUS AGE OF PEACE TO COME UNDER THE REIGN OF THE GREAT MONARCH" by Yves Dupont. Another one which has much the same content is this one you can buy off of amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Proph.../dp/0895550156

Now take my advice - ignore his commentary, just go straight to the prophecies!

There are also some good resources on the net. There is an internet version of a book by a Catholic scholar I think from the 50s called "European prophets" which includes many of these prophecies. The online version of the book comes in parts. I think this webpage is a list of the full book however:

European Prophets - 1a

Its a great resource.

This webpage is also a good resource: Prophecy on the Rise of the Great Monarch

You can also, if you cannot find all the prophets, google some of the names I have provided with the extracts on that other thread and read their writings directly. Bartholomew Haulhauzer's writings are all online.

If you would like, I could alsp PM you some more from other sources I know of. There are millions! Literally

I particularly like this one, a small passage from Venerable Bartholomew Haulzhauer's prophecies:

"...A great change will come to pass, such as no mortal man will have expected...a new mankind will come into existence. God possesses the key to everything. Blessed is he who will then be able to praise him, having obeyed all his commandments. And the great monarch of the world will create new laws for the new mankind and will cause a new age to begin, in which there will be only one flock and one shepherd, and peace will be of long, long duration, for the glory of God in heaven and on earth...The Sixth Age of the Spirit commences with the powerful Monarch and the Holy Pontiff...This will be an age of consolation in which God will console His Spirit of the affliction and the great tribulation of the preceding age. All the nations will be united in the Universal faith. The sacerdocy will flower more than ever, and men will seek the kingdom of God in all solicitude... Many saints and doctors will flourish in the earth. Men will love reason and justice. Peace will reign in all the universe, because the divine power will bind Satan for many years, until the son of perdition will rave anew...It is in that age that the relation of the sixth Spirit of the Lord will be known, that is to say the Spirit of Wisdom that God diffuses over all the surfaces of the globes in those times. For men will fear the Lord their God, they will observe the law and serve it with all their heart. The sciences will be multiplied and complete on the earth. The Holy Scriptures will be unanimously understood, without controversy and without the errors of heresies. Men will be enlightened, so much as in the natural sciences and in the celestial sciences. Finally, the Sixth Church, the Church of Philadelphia, is the type of this sixth age, for Philadelphia signifies friendship of brothers, and again guarding the heritage in union with the Lord. Now all these characters convene perfectly in the sixth age, in which they will have love, concord and perfect peace and in which the powerful Monarch will have to consider almost the entire world as his heritage. He will deliver up the earth, with the aid of the Lord his God from all his enemies, of ruin and of all evil..."

Now I'm sure Baha'is can relate to that

Many of these prophecies could probably be read from a Baha'i perspective. Afterall they anticipate, from an ancient context remember:

1. A charismatic world leader
2. A holy religious figure (ie Pope called "The Angelic Shepherd")
3. A World catastrophe (ie world war - some think this has already happened and was World war 2 cos the prophecies predict a kind of cold war after the world war)
4. Out of which will come a "new mankind", "a new age" and a new political order with one government, law, faith etc.
5. A long Age of Perfect Peace like nothing that has ever been before
6. Sadly though like all things this great peaceful civilisation which might last for hundreds or even thousands of years will one day come to end. The prophet tells us that the "son of perdition will rave anew", that is evil will come again.

Edward Palamar

"Let us note here, with regard to the difficulties we may find in submitting to the will of God, that even when our will is firmly decided to submit, and has in fact submitted, our mind, following its natural inclination, may still continue to reason and argue on the events that are occurring or may occur. We may say to ourselves for example: 'If I were now well, or if I were to fall ill, if I were given such and such a job, if I were sent to such and such a place, if such and such a thing happened, it would be good (or bad) for me, it would help (or prevent) my plans, I could do this or that as I want to,' and so on. Nature tries thus to obtain at least the satisfaction of thinking about and discussing the incidents of our lives. But we should endeavor to exterminate these remains of our corrupt nature, and just as for the love of God we have forbidden our will to use its freedom of choice, for the same reason we ought to deny our mind the freedom of discussion and judgment. Let us entrust ourselves totally and unreservedly to the direction of Divine Providence."

- from the chapter : The Practice of Conformity to the Will of God :
from On the Knowledge and Love of Our Lord Jesus Christ
- Jean Baptiste Saint-Jure

LordOfGoblins

I was just doing some reseach and looking again at this "ontological argument" that robertus brought up a while ago. I still cant wrap my head around it really and it makes me wonder whether these sorts of things can be used to justify the existance of anything eg unicorns.
If someone thinks they have a firm grasp on how it works please explain because I dont think I am getting it.
Here is another one from wikipedia which is apparently the 'original' ontological argument by Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109). It makes less immediate sense than the original one posted..

1.Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2.The idea of God exists in the mind.
3.A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4.If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5.We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6.Therefore, God exists.

rushdy

Its a great argument but its weird how you turn probability into certainty. At first you are playing out the fact that such an argument is possible, but at the end, you claim its certainty but actually stating that "God does exist".

I think something that helped me personally is defining what god is. Please understand that "God" is defined in million of ways depending on their knowledge of him based on their religious backgrounds or perception. So them being able to define there own view of the god they reject to acknowledge his existence is always a start for an argument.

Just make sure you understand their argument because most of the time, they present a good one that actually has some truth in it.

For example, If an atheist does not believe in the god religious claims to be the one who orders mass murder and kill all that don't believe in god then he is right! That god does not exist. And if this is the only characteristic of god that he has and thus, his atheism is reinforced by it, then his believes are very true!

BruceDLimber

It's as 'Abdu'l-Baha, head of the Baha'i Faith at the time, said to an atheist:

"The god you don't believe in, I don't believe in, either!"

:-)

Bruce

cire perdue

I could not find this on OCEAN. Where could I find it? Even if it is just ancedotal I think it is certainly in the spirit of the Faith.

BruceDLimber

Sorry: I've heard it repeated many times, but have no idea where it might be found.

Regards, :-)

Bruce

cire perdue

I wouldn't do that then, though I do like the statement. I would not make up quotes for the Master. I would love it if it had a source. I would just say it as my own words. I had never heard it.

BruceDLimber

I suggest you ask around on various forums--or even ask the Research Depatment at National.

I'm confident someone will know.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

cire perdue

Though I may look into it, you are reponsible for the source, because you posted it. Your approach seems rather casual to me.

tonyfish58

Most likely not Abdul'Baha

Maybe the source is this - Baha'i Coherence: Pilgrim's Notes, Mr. Furutan, 24 Feb 2001

Saturday, 24 FEB 2001
Mr. Furutan's Talk

Packing going to Moscow, Mr. Futuran packed in the middle of his books because it didn't sound religious. It was his only book for 5 years and he read it morning and night over and over. One day his friend Nicolae asked him about the book he read so much. He told him a little about it. He asked him "Do you believe in God?" If he said yes he would be in trouble. If he said no he would be lying. So he said "Nicolae, I don't believe in the God you don't believe in." Which is the God that is painted on the walls of churches or has a big white beard.

Regards Tony

Edward Palamar

The real blessing is that there isn't a need to argue. In light of the Gospel, it is always easy to see who preaches the good news and who doesn't. The very history of the words Theist and atheist shows that the unbeliever cannot exist without the believer. The converse statement is untrue.

I first learned of the word "ontology" when I read the maliciously minimizing writing entitled the "Fourth Way". I deliberately avoid using italics for its mention here as the word "ontology" has more to offer than the entire Gurdjieff ego trip which unfortunately severs man from God through an abusive and heretical teaching against both in its propoundment of the absence of soul at the moment of birth.

One of the points mentioned in this thread is the development of "Nostra Aetate". It serves as an example of how the doctrine of infallibilty can be compromised. It reminds me of the game show where the contestant gets to poll the audience. Any fruit of democracy is only infallible if its constituents are infallible. The doctrine of infallibility is entrusted to only one bishop at a time, and it is not a doctrine which states that the bishop is infallible, but that the Church's teaching on faith and morals is.

Christ is the only One Who is Infallible, Who is the Church's Teacher.

Edward Palamar

The Crusades center upon control of Jerusalem, the city where Jesus Christ was crucifed, resurrected and taken up to Heaven.

Hapless murdering was not the goal of the Crusades. Historically, the bulk of the warring centers upon a simple misquote of the words spoken by Jesus Christ. The misquote centers upon the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. The misquote is in the form of an addenda, the addition of the words "and the Son". Christ specifically taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Though the Father and Christ be One, and the Father has handed everything over to Christ, this mechanism of procession remains unchanged, for He Who glorifies the Son is the Father : in the words of Christ : "I am the Vine, My Father is the Vinedresser."

The custom of adding the words "and the Son" in Ritual Worship began as early as the end of the 4th century. The logistics of Heaven's response to this was to send an angel to a descendent of Ishmael to correct an error begun through the descendents of Isaac, Ishmael and Isaac being brothers via Abraham. The correction was given in a simple command "Recite", for if those adding "and the Son" to the Creed in worship were to check Scripture, they would see their error.

It wasn't until the Pontificate of Leo III (795-816) that the matter came to be seen as a definite error. Eric John, the editor of "The Popes", sums it up this way on p. 132 :

"It is difficult not to see that the addition to the Creed is both in accord with Scripture and reason, and the pope could do nothing but support it."

By this time, Islam was already on the rise in response to the angelic apparition, burgeoning with similar error. Even today in Jerusalem, there is the muslim quarter, the Christian quarter, and the like, remnants of error and correction from centuries past. Yet, through humanity's struggle in that city, the Cathedral of St. Anne, the mother of Our Spotless Virgin, has remained intact, a sign of Christ's legacy and leadership.

BruceDLimber

In your opinion.

Baha'is take a broader view.

And as to creeds, we don't much deal with them or worry about them, having none ourselves. Our many volumes of scripture suffice quite nicely as guidance!

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Fadl

Hey Bruce,

I can't really agree with you on this. The only way to know God is through his manifestation, God's "christ" (annointed one). Surely only the anointed one (christ) at whatever place or time manifested, is the only infallible, and the only path to God. I don't see how it is possible to have a "broader view" than this. In fact, when it comes to infallibilty, Baha'u'llah confirms what Edward has said:

"...the Most Great Infallibility is confined to the One Whose station is immeasurably exalted beyond ordinances or prohibitions and is sanctified from errors and omissions. Indeed He is a Light which is not followed by darkness and a Truth not overtaken by error."
- Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 108

If we do take a "broader view" it is, in my opinion, due only to sloppiness on the part of us Baha'is. Jesus was the christ, but not the only christ. This fact is easily confirmed in the Bible. If we confuse this fact, it may seem necessary to have a broader view of it to include all of God's manifestations, however, all God's manifestations are christ and the only way. There is no way that any being be a manifestation of God if he is not anointed (christ) as such by God. It is not true, therefore, that Baha'u'llah is "equal to" or "just as good" as christ. Baha'u'llah is christ. He is 'the anointed' of God, the world messiah. He is not Jesus, however, and if we wish to compare Jesus and Mirza Husayn Ali, there are many differences between them. However, if we wish to compare the "christness" of either, they are the same and share in the most great infallibility and are the essence of oneness.

BruceDLimber

Save that you overlook two important points:

• By your description, such guidance is only available during the brief time when a Manifestation is present on earth--clearly not true given the Writings left here--, and
• You miss the fact that 'Abdu'l-Baha had conferred infallibility granted by Bahau'llah!

and hence the broader view.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Fadl

Bruce,

'Abdu'l-Baha did not share in the same sort of infallibility (the most great infallibility) as Baha'u'llah. 'Abdu'l-Baha expounds on this topic in Some Answered Questions:

"It is said in the holy verse: "There is no partner for Him Who is the Dayspring of Revelation [1] in His Most Great Infallibility. He is, in truth, the exponent of 'God doeth whatsoever He willeth' in the kingdom of creation. Indeed the Almighty hath exclusively reserved this station for Himself and to none is given a share in this sublime and highly exalted distinction."[2]
[1 The Manifestation of God.]
[2 Kitáb-i-Aqdas: I.e., The Most Holy Book. The principal work of Bahá'u'lláh, which contains the greater part of the commandments. It is the basis of the principles of the Bahá'í Faith.]

Know that infallibility is of two kinds: essential infallibility and acquired infallibility. In like manner there is essential knowledge and acquired knowledge; and so it is with other names and attributes. Essential infallibility is peculiar to the supreme Manifestation, for it is His essential requirement, and an essential requirement cannot be separated from the thing itself. The rays are the essential necessity of the sun and are inseparable from it. Knowledge is an essential necessity of God and is inseparable from Him. Power is an essential necessity of God and is inseparable from Him. If it could be separated from Him, He would not be God. If the rays could be separated from the sun, it would not be the sun. Therefore, if one imagines 172 separation of the Most Great Infallibility from the supreme Manifestation, He would not be the supreme Manifestation, and He would lack the essential perfections.

But acquired infallibility is not a natural necessity; on the contrary, it is a ray of the bounty of infallibility which shines from the Sun of Reality upon hearts, and grants a share and portion of itself to souls. Although these souls have not essential infallibility, still they are under the protection of God -- that is to say, God preserves them from error. Thus many of the holy beings who were not dawning-points of the Most Great Infallibility, were yet kept and preserved from error under the shadow of the protection and guardianship of God, for they were the mediators of grace between God and men. If God did not protect them from error, their error would cause believing souls to fall into error, and thus the foundation of the Religion of God would be overturned, which would not be fitting nor worthy of God.

To epitomize: essential infallibility belongs especially to the supreme Manifestations, and acquired infallibility is granted to every holy soul."
p. 171

BruceDLimber

Then we agree.

Bruce

LordOfGoblins

perhaps a 'view with broader implications' might be a more useful way of putting it...
just a thought- not suggesting anyhone is wrong.
What do you think Fadl??