Bahai Forums

Go Back   Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Interfaith

Interfaith Interfaith discussion for different religious traditions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2013, 04:30 PM   #441
Senior Member
 
BlinkeyBill's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Quilimari,Chile
Posts: 4,213
My dear friend Some Further Querstions.

Quote:-“He brought millions of people to believe in The One God.”

As did Christianity and Judaism then and through the ages AFTER Islam came around. At best that is a mutual point not a progressive one.

“He brought these same people to believe in the Holiness of all the former prophets.”

Ehhhh yes and no… He gave a very distorted version of Biblical figures in many cases ESPECIALLY Christ. Muhammad taught his followers that Jesus didn’t even get crucified.End Quote.

I gave many proofs of why Muhammad is a Prophet of God, your words regarding:- As did Christianity and Judaism. Of course because they also are true messengers of God.

As for Christ being put to death, you have had the Baha'i point of view explained before, that you refuse to accept is not my problem, I do not have to prove anything to you. This is for you to accept or refuse.
Now you wish to refuse, you wish to argue verse by verse throughout all the books of God, this is not what I wish to do.
You have your belief I have mine, you interpret verses your way I see them differently, so end of story.
I am strong in my Faith, I see your feeble attempts to defame the Mohammad and Baha'u'llah as just that feeble.

85 We did not create the heavens and the earth and everything between them without a true purpose: the Hour will certainly come, so [Prophet] bear with them graciously.
86 Your Lord is the All Knowing Creator.
87 We have given you the seven oft-recited verses and the whole glorious Quran.
88 Do not look longingly at the good things We have given some to enjoy. Do not grieve over the [disbelievers], but lower your wings over the believers
89 and say, ‘I am here to give plain warning,’
90 like the [warning] We have sent down for those who divide themselves into bands
91 and abuse the Quran
––92 by your Lord, We will question them all
93 about their deeds.

Qur’an 15. AL-HIJR (M.A.S. Abdel Haleem)

In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (Most Holy Book) the following hath been revealed: "Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring Balance established amongst men. In this most perfect Balance whatsoever the peoples and kindreds possess must be weighed, while the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but know it. The eye of My loving-kindness weepeth sore over you, inasmuch as ye have failed to recognize the One upon Whom ye have been calling in the daytime and in the night season, at even and at morn.

Epistle to the Son of the Wolf. Baha’u’llah
 
Join Baha'i Forums


Welcome to Baha'i Forums, an open Baha'i Faith community! We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the Baha'i Forums family!


Old 05-07-2013, 04:30 PM   #442
Senior Member
 
BlinkeyBill's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Quilimari,Chile
Posts: 4,213
My dear friend Some Further Querstions.

Quote:-“He brought millions of people to believe in The One God.”

As did Christianity and Judaism then and through the ages AFTER Islam came around. At best that is a mutual point not a progressive one.

“He brought these same people to believe in the Holiness of all the former prophets.”

Ehhhh yes and no… He gave a very distorted version of Biblical figures in many cases ESPECIALLY Christ. Muhammad taught his followers that Jesus didn’t even get crucified.End Quote.

I gave many proofs of why Muhammad is a Prophet of God, your words regarding:- As did Christianity and Judaism. Of course because they also are true messengers of God.

As for Christ being put to death, you have had the Baha'i point of view explained before, that you refuse to accept is not my problem, I do not have to prove anything to you. This is for you to accept or refuse.
Now you wish to refuse, you wish to argue verse by verse throughout all the books of God, this is not what I wish to do.
You have your belief I have mine, you interpret verses your way I see them differently, so end of story.
I am strong in my Faith, I see your feeble attempts to defame the Mohammad and Baha'u'llah as just that feeble.

85 We did not create the heavens and the earth and everything between them without a true purpose: the Hour will certainly come, so [Prophet] bear with them graciously.
86 Your Lord is the All Knowing Creator.
87 We have given you the seven oft-recited verses and the whole glorious Quran.
88 Do not look longingly at the good things We have given some to enjoy. Do not grieve over the [disbelievers], but lower your wings over the believers
89 and say, ‘I am here to give plain warning,’
90 like the [warning] We have sent down for those who divide themselves into bands
91 and abuse the Quran
––92 by your Lord, We will question them all
93 about their deeds.

Qur’an 15. AL-HIJR (M.A.S. Abdel Haleem)

In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (Most Holy Book) the following hath been revealed: "Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring Balance established amongst men. In this most perfect Balance whatsoever the peoples and kindreds possess must be weighed, while the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but know it. The eye of My loving-kindness weepeth sore over you, inasmuch as ye have failed to recognize the One upon Whom ye have been calling in the daytime and in the night season, at even and at morn.

Epistle to the Son of the Wolf. Baha’u’llah
 
Old 05-07-2013, 06:53 PM   #443
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2013
From: forest falls california
Posts: 1,773
This is interesting to me, for I have just finished reading the Quran. I had read it years ago on two occasions in the whole, but seemed to get more out of it this time. However, the decisiveness of certain laws does seem relative to the time and conditions of its revelation.
The later abrogations, even within the 23 years of the revelation of the Quran itself, might be considered as progressive in the same relative timetable as that of the Bab relative to Baha'u'llah's, only 19 years apart.
 
Old 05-08-2013, 01:23 PM   #444
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@BlinkeyBill
“I gave many proofs of why Muhammad is a Prophet of God, your words regarding:- As did Christianity and Judaism. Of course because they also are true messengers of God.”

No Bill you gave a number of opinions but not proof according to your own religious writings.

Every subject presented to a thoughtful audience must be supported by rational proofs and logical arguments. Proofs are of four kinds: first, through sense-perception; second, through the reasoning faculty; third, from traditional or scriptural authority; fourth, through the medium of inspiration. That is to say, there are four criterions or standards of judgment by which the human mind reaches its conclusions.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 85)

While you have repeatedly insisted that your point of view is the correct one you have failed to provide the second proof: reasoning faculty, logic. The third proof of scriptural authority is also lacking. The first and forth proof are not so much applicable here. It’s not as if I reject all opinions not my own as illogical and unscriptural. I’ve met Christians and recently with Light upon Light that succeeded in presenting their point logically and with scripture.

“As for Christ being put to death, you have had the Baha'i point of view explained before, that you refuse to accept is not my problem, I do not have to prove anything to you. This is for you to accept or refuse.”

It’s been explained in part. But certain questions like how was Christ NOT figuratively crucified have yet to be answered in much depth. But you’re right that you don’t have to prove anything to me, that’s been true from day one. It has always been your own choice to post back and forth with me. You’ve said this kind of thing before but you keep posting ??? If you find this as unfruitful as you say then by all means enjoy the many other threads available. But there is a good chance that if you continue to post here I will respond. I sincerely pray you will find God and Christ deeper each day (I pray this for many Christians I agree with).

Peace to you BB, no need to respond if you don’t want to….
 
Old 05-08-2013, 01:24 PM   #445
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@dale ramsdell

Well without details to which parts you’re refereeing to dale I guess it might be difficult to say. But I think we can both agree it’s unfortunate that the tolerant attitude the Qur’an has early on towards non-Muslims shifts dramatically in the second to last chronological surah 9 that incites violence. I’d agree there probably are some improvements within the context of Islam itself, but do you see any (at any point) between the Qur’an and the Bible?
 
Old 05-08-2013, 01:29 PM   #446
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@Light upon light

“I think the Baha'i interpretation of that statement in the Quran (along with Sufis, Shakis and some other Muslim groups) is that the reality of Christ can never be crucified or killed. One can put to death a body, one cannot kill the soul within it.”

Alright I can understand that despite the quotes about what happened to Christ and his cause from the Baha’i writings you don’t think he was “inwardly” crucified. But I would like to know what would have qualified as a inward crucifixion to you. We may see different reasons, but it’s clear Christ wanted to avoid the cross if it was possible in the garden. What you think Christ meant when he cried “why have you forsaken me?” Certainly it was in reference to psalm 22 but why attribute everything but the opening verse to Christ?

Hab 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

In a certain sense God cannot look on sin. God wasn’t turning from Christ’s sin (he had none), but OURS that he carried. That’s how Grace works. It’s not that sin vanishes into thin air. It’s a toxic thing that must be dealt with and Christ did so.
 
Old 05-08-2013, 03:37 PM   #447
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2013
From: forest falls california
Posts: 1,773
Crucifiction

Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
@Light upon light

“I think the Baha'i interpretation of that statement in the Quran (along with Sufis, Shakis and some other Muslim groups) is that the reality of Christ can never be crucified or killed. One can put to death a body, one cannot kill the soul within it.”

Alright I can understand that despite the quotes about what happened to Christ and his cause from the Baha’i writings you don’t think he was “inwardly” crucified. But I would like to know what would have qualified as a inward crucifixion to you. We may see different reasons, but it’s clear Christ wanted to avoid the cross if it was possible in the garden. What you think Christ meant when he cried “why have you forsaken me?” Certainly it was in reference to psalm 22 but why attribute everything but the opening verse to Christ?

Hab 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

In a certain sense God cannot look on sin. God wasn’t turning from Christ’s sin (he had none), but OURS that he carried. That’s how Grace works. It’s not that sin vanishes into thin air. It’s a toxic thing that must be dealt with and Christ did so.
ON The Crucifixion of Christ being denied (outwardly) in the Quran, it might be helpful to view it in the context of Him saying: "Before Abraham was, I am" How do you crucify that One Who existed before Jesus, Moses, Abraham? (For Abraham was before Moses and Jesus). So His Reality was not crucified, just His body, which is not His eternal identity, which transcends corporeal existence and limitations.
Also, bear in mind what is written in the Surah of Imrans:
"Do not think that those who were slain in the Cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well provided for by Allah; pleased with His gifts and rejoicing that those whom they had left behind and who had not yet joined them have nothing to fear or regret; rejoicing in Allah's grace and bounty, Allah will not deny the faithful their reward."
 
Old 05-08-2013, 03:51 PM   #448
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2013
From: forest falls california
Posts: 1,773
Tolerance

Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
@dale ramsdell

Well without details to which parts you’re refereeing to dale I guess it might be difficult to say. But I think we can both agree it’s unfortunate that the tolerant attitude the Qur’an has early on towards non-Muslims shifts dramatically in the second to last chronological surah 9 that incites violence. I’d agree there probably are some improvements within the context of Islam itself, but do you see any (at any point) between the Qur’an and the Bible?
On tolerance, there are many references where both in the Quran and Hadiths tolerance was strongly asserted, especially for People of the Book.
In my recent reading of the Quran, however, I did see where in one instance it was revealed in the context of a particular time that the Jews and Christians were not to be trusted, but I suspect there was good reason for it, probably in the midst of some very devious plotting and conniving on their part towards the Prophet and His early followers.
Consider also the depths to which the Jewish people, their leaders at least, had fallen at the time of Christ, their persecution of Him and His followers. So to be fair, the same scenario probably was occurring I would gather.
The violence against the unbelievers might be likened to the violence against the Nazis, bin Laden, or any number of evil-doers, etc. I do agree that there is a harshness from our modern vantage point, to such conditions and admonitions of the time, but then I look at the phases that children go through in their moral and spiritual development. People can be very savage, and the civilization process is not to be taken for granted. We have the "potential" to be civilized and spiritual, as it is latent within us, but not automatic, and must be nurtured. This, I think, is what God has done throughout religious history through the instruments of His Prophets. The Old Testament is full of parallels with the violence of Islam, and Christians have a hellish history themselves. I grew up on an Indian Reservation and it was no picnic for my Lakota friends who were beaten, locked up, and deprived of food for so much as speaking their own language. This, by priests and nuns!
 
Old 05-08-2013, 05:00 PM   #449
Senior Member
 
BlinkeyBill's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Quilimari,Chile
Posts: 4,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
@BlinkeyBill
“I gave many proofs of why Muhammad is a Prophet of God, your words regarding:- As did Christianity and Judaism. Of course because they also are true messengers of God.”

No Bill you gave a number of opinions but not proof according to your own religious writings.

Every subject presented to a thoughtful audience must be supported by rational proofs and logical arguments. Proofs are of four kinds: first, through sense-perception; second, through the reasoning faculty; third, from traditional or scriptural authority; fourth, through the medium of inspiration. That is to say, there are four criterions or standards of judgment by which the human mind reaches its conclusions.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 85)

While you have repeatedly insisted that your point of view is the correct one you have failed to provide the second proof: reasoning faculty, logic. The third proof of scriptural authority is also lacking. The first and forth proof are not so much applicable here. It’s not as if I reject all opinions not my own as illogical and unscriptural. I’ve met Christians and recently with Light upon Light that succeeded in presenting their point logically and with scripture.

“As for Christ being put to death, you have had the Baha'i point of view explained before, that you refuse to accept is not my problem, I do not have to prove anything to you. This is for you to accept or refuse.”

It’s been explained in part. But certain questions like how was Christ NOT figuratively crucified have yet to be answered in much depth. But you’re right that you don’t have to prove anything to me, that’s been true from day one. It has always been your own choice to post back and forth with me. You’ve said this kind of thing before but you keep posting ??? If you find this as unfruitful as you say then by all means enjoy the many other threads available. But there is a good chance that if you continue to post here I will respond. I sincerely pray you will find God and Christ deeper each day (I pray this for many Christians I agree with).

Peace to you BB, no need to respond if you don’t want to….
This will be my last reply here in this thread, I do not wish to play the your understanding my understanding game.
We all have the obligation of reading the revealed verses of someone who says they are a messenger of God, and making up our own mind.

You say and I quote:- While you have repeatedly insisted that your point of view is the correct one.End quote.
I do not believe I have ever insisted that my point of view is correct, I have only offered my understanding as a Baha'i. This idea you have stated is totally incorrect, I see you and Icondule often putting words into peoples mouths that were never said. Your interpretation of their words.

Peace to you.
 
Old 05-08-2013, 07:17 PM   #450
Jcc
Senior Member
 
Jcc's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Edwardsville, Illinois, USA
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
@BlinkeyBill

I’ve read that the Baha’i interpretation of this is that he was saying they didn’t TRULY kill or crucify Christ inwardly.

"Regarding your question relative to Surih 4, 156 of the 'Qur'án' in which Muhammad says that the Jews did not crucify Jesus, the Christ but one like Him; what is meant by this passage is that although the Jews succeeded in destroying the physical body of Jesus, yet they were impotent to destroy the Divine reality in Him."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 19, 1938)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 497)

Let’s say for the moment that when Jesus cried “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” it didn’t reflect his relationship with his Father (course you know I disagree in reality ) How was Christ NOT figuratively crucified then?

“The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body;”
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 103)

If all that does not constitute a “figurative” crucifixion what would and why?
I think what you are missing here is that many things in Scripture can be both literal and figurative. They can have many layers of meaning. In the case of Christ's crucifixion, it is an event that happened quite literally, but it has great significance and meaning. The quote from Abdu'l-Baha above highlights one of those significances.

Think about it - if Christ had not appeared to the disciples, resurrected, what would that have meant to the future of Christianity? But since He did appear on the third day and several times afterward to the disciples, they were filled with faith and hope and went on to spread His teachings to the world. [Mark 16:9-15]

In the case of what the Quran says, it emphasizes that Christ's spirit could not be killed, but should not be interpreted as denying that Jesus was physically crucified. Maybe most Muslims interpret it that way, but Baha'u'llah makes it clear that it should not be interpreted that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
“His teaching uplifted a people completely immoral and without any spiritual understanding of God and His prophets.”

I’d agree it did uplift to a degree but not to the higher degree of Christianity. In Islam a husband is permitted and instructed to hit his wife if he fears rebellion (it need not be proven, examined or consulted with others). While in Christianity a husband is told: Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

None but a few funny fellows hit themselves when they sin. Paul instructs husbands to transfer the instinct they have to take care of their own bodies over to the care of their wives. Muhammad does not.
I don't think you are correct here about Muhammad instructing Muslims to beat their wives. I spent some time searching in the Quran for any reference to a husband beating his wife and couldn't find any. If you could cite the Sura and verse it would help. There may well be some verse that makes you think that, but I can't think of one.

But there is a deeper point concerning the relationship between a man and wife in Christianity. To say that a man's wife is as his own body sounds noble and romantic, but it actually does not properly respect a woman as an individual. She has her own body that doesn't belong to anyone else (but God). In Baha'i teachings, this is clear, and I would say represents progress compared with Christian teachings.

In Muslim teachings, that is a harder case to make, considering that a woman's testimony in a trial is equal to half of a man's, etc., but still each person is judged based on their own faith and actions. With the Baha'i interpretation of the Quran, there are endless gems of wisdom that show the nobility of men and women and their equality and complementarity. I am reminded of a Baha'i prayer for marriage that cites the Quran, and shows that deep meaning and significance:

"Wherefore, wed Thou in the heaven of Thy mercy these two birds of the nest of Thy love, and make them the means of attracting perpetual grace; that from the union of these two seas of love a wave of tenderness may surge and cast the pearls of pure and goodly issue on the shore of life. “He hath let loose the two seas, that they meet each other: Between them is a barrier which they overpass not. Which then of the bounties of your Lord will ye deny? From each He bringeth up greater and lesser pearls.” [Qur’án 56:62]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
“He brought a Book, this is certainly one of His greatest proofs.”

A book that disagrees on the life events of numerous persons (doctrine besides) of previous holy books from which it claims has the same author (God ). A book that tells numerous stories of Moses but omits something akin to 1Corinthians 13. Since God says He IS LOVE and allegedly this is a progressive book why include so many redundant things but omit this? Or is the nature of love not quite that important? Islam is certainly big on duty and submission, not so much love it seems.
I see your point. Most places where the word love is mentioned in the Quran, it is referring to right actions of believers that God loves, which are often contrasted with evil acts that God hates. We could if you like discuss why Muhammad spoke in those terms, and the ways in which the Quran teaches love, but frankly I am not prepared to do that now (it's late). I would just say that even though many Muslims consider Bible as being superseded by the Quran, and is therefore unnecessary, Baha'is certainly don't believe that, we think the Christ's teachings on love are an eternal part of the Faith of God, as is evidenced by Baha'u'llah's writings.
 
Old 05-09-2013, 06:25 AM   #451
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@dale ramsdell

“ON The Crucifixion of Christ being denied (outwardly) in the Quran, it might be helpful to view it in the context of Him saying: "Before Abraham was, I am" How do you crucify that One Who existed before Jesus, Moses, Abraham? (For Abraham was before Moses and Jesus). So His Reality was not crucified, just His body, which is not His eternal identity, which transcends corporeal existence and limitations.
Also, bear in mind what is written in the Surah of Imrans:”

While I do believe in the Trinity I also recognize Christ’s humanity and vulnerability that he chose to have in becoming a man.

Mat 4:11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
Luk 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Luk 22:43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
Luk 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Mat 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
Mat 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

#1 Angels ministered to Christ on at least two occasions.

#2 Medical research has found that under times of EXTREAME stress people do sometimes sweat blood. Hematidrosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#3 I submit that the cup Christ drank was God’s wrath/judgment of sin. It was a cup GOD gave him not the Jews/those who crucified him. The prospect of drinking that cup TERRIFIED Yeshua. It meant willing (and profound) separation from his Father that had nothing but perfect love between them all his human life and eternity past before. I don’t for one instant deny that the physical aspect of the crucifixion was intense, long and terrible. That being said it seems very unlikely to me that this physical suffering is what caused Christ to be “sorrowful, even unto death”. Would you not agree that Christ had wells of inner strength we can’t begin to grasp? Otherwise what do you think this cup from God was if not His wrath/judgment of sin?

So for me I think one could say Christ was inwardly crucified since he had a time of separation from the Father.

“On tolerance, there are many references where both in the Quran and Hadiths tolerance was strongly asserted, especially for People of the Book.”

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this considering the law of abrogation. See my earlier post #381. If you don’t believe in the law of abrogation can you please explain why not? (And it would have been nice if the violent command was rescinded before he died. Unless I am mistaken it never was.) The violence of the OT was a lot more targeted and for certain periods of time, certain cities etc. The Qur’an makes very BROAD and long lasting strokes about who’s got violence coming to them. But in any case you’re not going to find that kind of violence advocated in the NT.

I am sorry for that painful history… I wish I could say something profound and meaningful. But in all fairness we’re comparing the teachings of the two religions right? Every faith had those who choose badly… The question is are they following their holy book.
 
Old 05-09-2013, 06:31 AM   #452
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@BlinkeyBill

Goodbye and may God guide and bless you into a deeper relationship with Him.

Last edited by Some Further Questions; 05-09-2013 at 07:59 AM. Reason: better peace making
 
Old 05-09-2013, 06:37 AM   #453
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@Jcc

“I don't think you are correct here about Muhammad instructing Muslims to beat their wives. I spent some time searching in the Quran for any reference to a husband beating his wife and couldn't find any. If you could cite the Sura and verse it would help. There may well be some verse that makes you think that, but I can't think of one.”

34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 4 - Women)

“But there is a deeper point concerning the relationship between a man and wife in Christianity. To say that a man's wife is as his own body sounds noble and romantic, but it actually does not properly respect a woman as an individual. She has her own body that doesn't belong to anyone else (but God). In Baha'i teachings, this is clear, and I would say represents progress compared with Christian teachings.”

I agree that man or woman the body belongs first to God.

Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

If both bodies belong to the other doesn’t that properly respect the woman? Additionally the Bible says Christians are to submit to one another (men to women and vice versa). It also talks about husbands loving their wives the way Christ loves his followers. Such a love does not force itself unfairly.

1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

“I see your point. Most places where the word love is mentioned in the Quran, it is referring to right actions of believers that God loves, which are often contrasted with evil acts that God hates. We could if you like discuss why Muhammad spoke in those terms, and the ways in which the Quran teaches love, but frankly I am not prepared to do that now (it's late).”

I am VERY interested in discussing this. See my post #381 toward the end that cites verses that say Allah does not love such and such a sinner. Below that I cite Bible verses that state God’s love for sinners. Another point that disturbs me is that Muslims are not allowed to pray for those opposed to Islam even though Christ, Stephen and other Christians clearly did for those that opposed Christianity. One of those answered prayers was the Apostle Paul so why not? Why not pray for those that need it most?
 
Old 05-09-2013, 07:43 AM   #454
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: United States
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
@Light upon light

Alright I can understand that despite the quotes about what happened to Christ and his cause from the Baha’i writings you don’t think he was “inwardly” crucified.
Well in the station of the Alpha and the Omega, the Word of God, etc. it is clear that reality of Christ can never be crucified or destroyed. For that would destroy the universe which is contingent upon Him.

That is what is meant by the statement that Christ could not be destroyed or crucified.

Now the contingent aspect, the body of Jesus, the human personality, the feelings -- all of that was subject to the hands of the evildoers (inasmuch as God allowed His Son to be crucified for His Own Purpose).

Quote:

In a certain sense God cannot look on sin. God wasn’t turning from Christ’s sin (he had none), but OURS that he carried. That’s how Grace works. It’s not that sin vanishes into thin air. It’s a toxic thing that must be dealt with and Christ did so.
God does not see sin. And sin does not see God.

Sin is to fall short, to use the good in a way not intended, not harmonious with the greatest good. It does not have any real existence. And in the deepest sense, there is no such thing.

"Were it not for the cold, how would the heat of Thy words prevail, O Expounder of the worlds?

Were it not for calamity, how would the sun of Thy patience shine, O Light of the worlds?"

The sin of the world is itself a means for the glorification of the Sinless.
 
Old 05-09-2013, 07:50 AM   #455
Senior Member
 
mytmouse57's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: United States
Posts: 601
Once again, I'll note, that detached reasoning strongly suggests that at some point, one should remove oneself from the tangled complexities of arguments, and look directly to the ends of ideas.

Anything, when argued cleverly enough, can be made to seem good. That is, until one pulls back, and looks at the end of where an idea is headed.

The logical end of religious chauvinism is fundamentally irrational and unjust.

It suggests a God that is either inept, that He plays favorites, or even that He is a deliberately cruel bastard who garners sick amusement by pitting us against one another, so that He can level his wrath at the "wrong" party in the end.

It turns religion into a zero-sum competitive team sport. An idea I find both shallow and utterly offensive.

Such a God and such religion is not worthy of belief or even acknowledgement, much less worship.

Last edited by mytmouse57; 05-09-2013 at 07:53 AM.
 
Old 05-09-2013, 07:44 PM   #456
Jcc
Senior Member
 
Jcc's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Edwardsville, Illinois, USA
Posts: 493
@ Some Further Questions: Hello.

I would like to organize the points we discuss, if you don't mind, so at least I can get a sense of whether we make any progress. What I have so far is:

1. On the crucifixion of Jesus, I made the point that Jesus was actually crucified, and what the Quran means is that His spirit was not killed. The crucifixion, although a literal event, also has many layers of meaning and significance, so it is both literal and symbolic. You did not respond to that point, so I don't know if you agree or disagree with what I said.

2. I questioned whether the Quran actually says that a husband should whip his wife. You provided the verse where it does say that [4:34]. I missed it because it says "scourge", which does mean to whip. Does this represent a backwards step compared with Christianity? Arguably, yes, although in reality Christian society was strongly patriarchal and remained so up to modern times. More on that later. [1 Timothy 2:11-15],

3. I made the point that throughout the Quran there are many layers of symbolism, subtleties and insights into spiritual truths that are mostly not understood by Muslims . These are revealed and explained by the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

In a similar manner, much of the symbolism of the Old Testament that refers to Christ is not understood by the Jews, otherwise they would have accepted Christ. Those prophesies and symbols were actually intended by God in the Old Testament to refer to Christ, weren't they? Likewise, the inner meaning and prophecies in the Quran were intended by God (through Muhammad), but it was not until the advent of the Bab and Baha'u'lah that their meaning was fully revealed.

4. I basically agreed with you that love is not discussed in the Quran in any way similar to some parts of the New Testament, such as 1 Corinthians 13. However, all of the same teachings regarding love for others are present in the Quran, although not equally towards believers and non-believers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
I am VERY interested in discussing this. See my post #381 toward the end that cites verses that say Allah does not love such and such a sinner. Below that I cite Bible verses that state God’s love for sinners. Another point that disturbs me is that Muslims are not allowed to pray for those opposed to Islam even though Christ, Stephen and other Christians clearly did for those that opposed Christianity. One of those answered prayers was the Apostle Paul so why not? Why not pray for those that need it most?
I can understand your being disturbed, as you say, that Muhammad did not teach the Muslims to pray for sinners and those who oppose Islam. I read through your post #381.

You say: " As best I understand the Qur’an according to its self-imposed Law of Abrogation these verses override the … nicer verses in the Qur’an."

I think that you are not properly applying this principle, by saying that the later Suras, such as 9, (Repentance) override (abrogate) earlier "nicer" ones. Any references to war need to be placed in the context of war. By that time, Muhammad was the ruler of a nation-state, He was defending that nation against attacks of ruthless foes that had been constantly trying to attack the Muslims.

Here's a question: Is all war by its nature un-Christian? Should Christians all be pacifists? Maybe, but they certainly were not pacificts, at least by the time they had increased in numbers to the point where they ruled nations. And currently all the major Churches recognize "just" war as allowable.

Clearly, these characteristics of Islam are more similar to the Old Testament. I would agree with you that Islam is not more progressive than the New Testament in those respects, but in other ways it is. The nation that was created by Muhammad was very progressive for its time, and lead to great advancements in civilization. By current standards, it is not any more.

You state: "There are LOTS of things that cause me to disbelieve the Qur’an, but yes going from children to servant is one of them. I’ll be one of the first ones to admit that things were often harsh in the OT, sometimes similar to what you see in the Qur’an. But we both agree that after Christ things got better, it was a new Covenant. When Muhammad’s new covenant came along I think things got worse."

No, I disagree about Muhammad making things worse, rather, in Arabia they were already much worse before Muhammad and better afterward. For that matter, in Christian nations, they were not fully practicing Christ's teachings, they were not being true to Christ's new Covenant. Are they now?

You state: "I don’t presume to tell God what He can or cannot do, I simply believe Him when He says He cannot lie and that Christians became His children FOREVER not to be relegated to solely servant when Muhammad showed up."

You have a point. Christ said "Heaven and Earth shall pass away and my words shall not pass away." As Baha'is understand it, "Heaven and Earth passing away" means a religious dispensation has ended, and a new one begun (in this case, Islam). Christ's words are still with us, as powerful as ever. I take issue with wanting to be a child but not a servant of God. What's wrong with being a servant of God? It requires humility. What's wrong with humility?

But the Dispensation of Islam has ended. "Heaven and Earth have passed away" again. Baha'u'llah said "The law of Holy War is blotted out from the book.." That law is definitively abrogated. Slavery was allowed in all past religions, including Christianity. No more. The equality of men and women is proclaimed. The Oneness of all mankind, and the joining together of all nations in Peace.

So, from that perspective, there should be no need to argue about whether the teachings of Islam are unduly harsh or not.

I hope you understand that I do respect your views, and consider them carefully before responding, but I am presenting my views. If there is anything you think is missing the point, please let me know how it is.

-JCC

Last edited by Jcc; 05-09-2013 at 07:51 PM.
 
Old 05-09-2013, 07:45 PM   #457
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 865
Light upon light, Christians believe in the hypostatic union. Christ is fully man and fully God. God's substance of divinity did not die, the person Jesus Christ died in his humanity. Thus Christ as the creator did die for us.
 
Old 05-10-2013, 06:50 AM   #458
Senior Member
 
mytmouse57's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: United States
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
Light upon light, Christians believe in the hypostatic union. Christ is fully man and fully God. God's substance of divinity did not die, the person Jesus Christ died in his humanity. Thus Christ as the creator did die for us.
Except for the part about Jesus literally being God, that sounds close to what Baha'is believe.
 
Old 05-10-2013, 06:06 PM   #459
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 865
JCC, we are not told as Christians to scourge our wives, to beat them, this is something which should never be done and the quran encourages it and i think muslims and bahai have to deal with this, it seems pretty clear (unless you can provide a hadith or tradition which lessens the impact). Although Christian societies were strongly patriarchal like Byzantine society, unlike in islamic society the Christian woman had options.

Monasticism the primary option in which one was free, could get learning and education as well as lead a life in contemplation to God. We even have women whom were secular that wrote on history (see Anna Komnene as an example), religion (though not as much as the men did obviously) and other subjects. I cannot think of a single early female islamic writer, can you provide one? One in the islamic world today? Truth is Christianity opened up the world for women who were basically treated cattle in their pagan greek or roman society. I might also point out the bible gives sexual rights to the woman and the man equally, that they cannot deny another, I don't think the same could be said of islam. It must also be pointed out that Christianity gradually grew out of those holdovers from paganism regaurding women, the islamic world has not done so.

Also JCC what is the proposed interpretive framework you offer in the gospels case to say some things in the gospels must be interpreted literally and some spiritually. What is the spiritual interpretation of Christ eating fish and saying that ghosts don't eat fish, as if the point Luke was trying to make in quoting this is a point emphasise that Jesus was really there with the apostles after the ressurection?

Last edited by Iconodule; 05-10-2013 at 06:22 PM.
 
Old 05-10-2013, 07:49 PM   #460
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2013
From: forest falls california
Posts: 1,773
Treatment of Women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
JCC, we are not told as Christians to scourge our wives, to beat them, this is something which should never be done and the quran encourages it and i think muslims and bahai have to deal with this, it seems pretty clear (unless you can provide a hadith or tradition which lessens the impact). Although Christian societies were strongly patriarchal like Byzantine society, unlike in islamic society the Christian woman had options.

Monasticism the primary option in which one was free, could get learning and education as well as lead a life in contemplation to God. We even have women whom were secular that wrote on history (see Anna Komnene as an example), religion (though not as much as the men did obviously) and other subjects. I cannot think of a single early female islamic writer, can you provide one? One in the islamic world today? Truth is Christianity opened up the world for women who were basically treated cattle in their pagan greek or roman society. I might also point out the bible gives sexual rights to the woman and the man equally, that they cannot deny another, I don't think the same could be said of islam. It must also be pointed out that Christianity gradually grew out of those holdovers from paganism regaurding women, the islamic world has not done so.

Also JCC what is the proposed interpretive framework you offer in the gospels case to say some things in the gospels must be interpreted literally and some spiritually. What is the spiritual interpretation of Christ eating fish and saying that ghosts don't eat fish, as if the point Luke was trying to make in quoting this is a point emphasise that Jesus was really there with the apostles after the ressurection?
Treatment of Women
In the Surah of the Cow: "Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women."
In my own recent reading of the Quran I found a number of references indicating justice and fair treatment of women. In fairness, to attack or reject the teachings or validity of the Quran based upon certain verses to the exclusion of others in context raises questions, as sometimes our bias or even prejudices (with which we must examine our own selves and motivations), may be surfacing.
For in the context of how we accept or reject both the Old and New Testament, there are also similar harsh exhortations which cannot be overlooked. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" Now does this advocate child-beating? Let us be fair in our judgement and understanding.
The same notions of extreme behavior and how to deal with one another, or our children, or spouses, when irrational and out of control, require some measure of restraint, even punishment. To overlook the numerous exhortations to be just with one another, and focus on what certainly appears to us in the modern age as less than that, may be lacking in appreciating the limited capacity in the developmental stage of humanity at the time and place, when and where such revelations and prescriptions were given, by the various Prophets in their particular time.
To this day, we witness how barbarous and unjust people are to each other in any number and variety of ways. Christian slavery is very recent. The slaughter of Christian wars pitting one nation against another, or Islamic, or Hindu, etc reflects this plainly, and universally. The real question becomes, "How do we grow up?" and "How do we get there from here?" to discover "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
 
Old 05-10-2013, 07:57 PM   #461
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 865
Yet the woman has no right to beat her husband, she must be totally submissive to him in all things. You forget that surah that clear teaching that while they might have "similar" rights according to the quran they by no means have equal rights, they can be beaten for instance when they refuse to listen.

Now I would simply say in regaurds to the Old testament your comparing it to the quran, I will say that women are not children and are not to be punished as the quran says. They are adults, although I suppose while i think about it women married young in the islamic society and unfortunately (although it was not legal or common) the Christian societies as young as six so maybe it does apply.

It seems to me you are trying to lower the impact of what the quran says with regaurds to women, you cannot deny that it teaches that women are to be totally obediant to their husbands and the husband has the right, no rather the duty to punish her if she is not. Do you accept this? Or have we simply misread the quran?

34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

It seems to me fairly obvious you cannot deny the quran for fear of denying God but you cannot accept blankly what it says for fear of offending modern sensibilities. Bahais should be comfortable in saying this was what Muhammad received, we have received something better. This is an actual instance of what you could say is progressive revelation. Although I will be frank and say the Christian view of Paul was far more "progressive."
 
Old 05-10-2013, 10:01 PM   #462
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2013
From: forest falls california
Posts: 1,773
Reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
Yet the woman has no right to beat her husband, she must be totally submissive to him in all things. You forget that surah that clear teaching that while they might have "similar" rights according to the quran they by no means have equal rights, they can be beaten for instance when they refuse to listen.

Now I would simply say in regaurds to the Old testament your comparing it to the quran, I will say that women are not children and are not to be punished as the quran says. They are adults, although I suppose while i think about it women married young in the islamic society and unfortunately (although it was not legal or common) the Christian societies as young as six so maybe it does apply.

It seems to me you are trying to lower the impact of what the quran says with regaurds to women, you cannot deny that it teaches that women are to be totally obediant to their husbands and the husband has the right, no rather the duty to punish her if she is not. Do you accept this? Or have we simply misread the quran?

34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

It seems to me fairly obvious you cannot deny the quran for fear of denying God but you cannot accept blankly what it says for fear of offending modern sensibilities. Bahais should be comfortable in saying this was what Muhammad received, we have received something better. This is an actual instance of what you could say is progressive revelation. Although I will be frank and say the Christian view of Paul was far more "progressive."

Reply:
I greatly appreciate your thoughtful reply and the tone. This is definitely a challenging issue to you, myself, and many others. It warrants sincere dialogue and good questions, which deserve depth in deliberations.
You know that while Baha'is have been heavily persecuted by the fanatic elements of Islam, particularly in the land of its birth, Baha'is often defend Islam. However, in doing so, it is generally understood that is laws were for a specified period of time, which is 1260 years. Within this view, Baha'is regard Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets, to have been the fulfillment of the Adamic Cycle.
The Bab stated "When God sent forth His Prophet Muhammad, on that day the termination of the Prophetic Cycle was foreordained in the knowledge of God. Yea, that promise hath indeed come true and the decree of God hath been accomplished as He ordained. Assuredly we are today living in the Days of God."
Baha'u'llah said, "The Prophetic Cycle hath, verily, ended. The Eternal Truth is now come."
He also said, "All the Prophets proclaim the same Faith." "This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future."
For me, coming from a Christian background, it was not easy to reconcile such questions as arise from the apparent discrepancies in the various Holy Books. Clearly, there are differences to be understood in light of the different ages and conditions of humanity. Christ changed certain laws which the Jews had been conditioned to for thousands of years.
The Bahai view is that the Manifestations of God are Instruments of God's Will. "He doeth what He pleaseth." They are Divine Physicians Who diagnose the illness and prescribe the remedy which an afflicted humanity requires according to the exigencies of the age. They are Divine Educators who awaken that which is latent within us according to our stage of development. When we were children, we were taught elementary things. As we matured, the lesson plan changes according to our increased capacity.
We are now transitioning from the collective stage of adolescence to maturity. The Old Testament taught very harsh treatment of adulterers, thieves, homosexuals, murderers. People were commonly stoned. Then when Jesus came, He said, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone." He elevated the method of dealing with sin, encouraging forgiveness.
If children succeed in learning the lessons given by their teachers, they progress forward. The Jews were continuously backsliding and God chastised them again and again, foretelling their situation to continue for thousands of years, with banishment, but eventually returning to their homeland. Their rejection of Christ added to their own humiliation, and only a few followed the New Covenant Christ brought.
Islam was brought to the most backwards people on earth, some contend, for they even buried their daughters alive, often killing the mother for not first bearing a son! If the laws revealed to such people seem harsh, and even reflect a digression of human progress, then it seems logical that they were addressed accordingly, reminiscent of Mosaic Law.
Baha'u'llah abolished the priesthood, propounded the equality of men and women, the harmony of science and religion, promoted education for all, saying that it is the duty for every father to educate his children, and that if one has a son and a daughter and can only afford to educate one, the daughter is to be preferred, for she will the mother and first teacher of her children. Thus humanity will attain great progress in a single generation.
All the Holy Books have spoken, in so many words, of the time when there shall be One Fold and One Shepherd. All religions have spoken of a great Prophet who would unite the human race and reconcile the differences amongst men. The darkness of superstition and ignorance would be lifted, injustice would be supplanted by justice.
Baha'u'llah proclaims Himself to be the fulfillment of all these holy traditions, be they Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, etc. That is a tall order! Yet if He is Who He claims to be, then that which He has to say about the former Prophets is to be accepted, and it is up to us to understand Their varying teachings in light of human progress, or lack thereof, according to both our collective obedience and disobedience.
God bless you in attempting to comprehend these differences, as difficult as they are, to understand.
 
Old 05-10-2013, 10:22 PM   #463
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 865
Actually women cannot be members of the house of universal justice within bahai so there is not this complete equality. But would you say in the seventh century is was a good and holy practice to beat a disobediant wife according to the revelation of Muhammad? Thats the point I am getting at.

As far as the Old testament, generally I have no problems with it, it clearly shows us of the longsuffering of Christ (who is God) and his right to punish disobediant israel and believers in general.
 
Old 05-11-2013, 12:56 AM   #464
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2013
From: forest falls california
Posts: 1,773
Equality of men and women

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
Actually women cannot be members of the house of universal justice within bahai so there is not this complete equality. But would you say in the seventh century is was a good and holy practice to beat a disobediant wife according to the revelation of Muhammad? Thats the point I am getting at.

As far as the Old testament, generally I have no problems with it, it clearly shows us of the longsuffering of Christ (who is God) and his right to punish disobediant israel and believers in general.
As to equality of men and women in the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah states that men and women have always been equal in the sight of God. To draw the conclusion that men and women are not equal based upon membership in the House of Justice being composed of men is not a contradiction of that established belief. The Baha'u'llah clearly said so and said that the time will come when this matter will be as clear as the noon-day sun.
Speculation as to why this is at this time is fruitless, but it is definitely not due to inequality according to the Sacred Text. Baha'is who are women are not troubled by this and overwhelmingly recognize that certain differences in gender exist, for men and women are as the two wings of the bird. Both must be strengthen in order for the bird to fly.
We can look to biological differences, suggesting that the level of compassion in the nurturing role of women is paramount, but this is mere speculation, and it leads to nowhere.
For Baha'is, "The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His Laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behooveth everyone who reacheth this sublime station, this summit of transcendental glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseperable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration." from the Kitab-i-Aqdas, or Most Holy Book, by Baha'u'llah
Let me say that all of these issues are secondary to the primary importance of recognition of the Manifestation of God for the age in which we live. In the time of Moses, it was Him, and that which proceeded from Him was to be obeyed, for it came not from Him, but from God. Similarly, Jesus said "These are not My words, but Him that sent Me." Again, Muhammad clearly stated that every verse revealed in the Koran was from the Angel of Gabriel. Thus, none of the Prophets of God spoke in their own words, but rather God revealed through them that which His Will desired for humanity whether we accept these teachings and commandments as real or not.
If the Manifestation of God is indeed from God, then that which He says is true and to be accepted as such. Therefore the arguments are with God, rather than with this or that with which we find ourself questioning from the confines of our human limitations.
All of these perplexing questions are secondary to recognizing His Manifestation and argumentative challenges to this or that, intended to find fault and weakness or contradiction are illogical until one deal with facing the reality of "Who is God?" "How does He reveal Himself to His servants and communicate His Will to us?" and "How are we to recognize His Manifestations". Once we answer these primary and most important questions, having first purified our hearts from all opinions of men, prayed with absolute sincerity that God will reveal to us His Truths, only then will it be revealed to us."
The Greatest Proof of a Manifestation of God is His own Person. Following this, His verses are the determining means by which we may come to know the truth of His Divinity and the validity of that which proceeds from the Mose Exalted Pen. Once we have attained unto the recognition of the truth of the Dayspring of Revelation and Fountain of His Laws, we have arrived at the shore of the Ocean of Certitude, and must bring ourselves into a condition of obedience to that which hath proceeded from the Source of the Divine Will, for only through obedience will the confirmations of God surround us and the veils be lifted. We must empty ourselves entirely of the sayings of men, and not allow love for anything delude us, nor hate blindly repel us from the truth.
So I would suggest that you immerse yourself in the Ocean of His Words, that the pearls hidden beneath the depths be given to you. Search is required. Ardor is needed. Leave self behind, and step into the Rose Garden of the melody of the Dove of Heaven, listen to its songs of God warbling upon the bough of the Tree of Eternity.
The evidence of the shower is the bounty thereof, which reneweth and investeth the world with the mantle of life. Yea, the blind can perceive naught from the sun except its heat, and the arid soil hath no share of the showers of mercy. "Marvel not if in the Qur'an the unbeliever perceiveth naught but the trace of letters, for in the sun, the blind findeth naught but heat."

Baha'u'llah : The Kitab-i-Iqan
 
Old 05-11-2013, 01:13 AM   #465
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 865
You haven't answered my question in all of that text.

Was it a good and holy thing to beat ones wife when she was not listening to you? As Muhammad mandated in the quran/ Even if you say this is now wrong, during the time of muhammad was it an acceptable God ordained action? I might also say in concerns to Christ that while he did do the will of the father and spoke the words of the father (being the wisdom or word of God thats pretty much his perogative) he also said he gives up his life of his own accord and that he can raise it. Not God the father but he can do these things which belong only to God which moses and Muhammad and Mirza Hussain could not do.

Last edited by Iconodule; 05-11-2013 at 01:19 AM.
 
Old 05-11-2013, 04:31 AM   #466
Jcc
Senior Member
 
Jcc's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Edwardsville, Illinois, USA
Posts: 493
@iconodule

The discussion at this point that's focusing on one verse in the Quran (4:34) is revolving around whether it could have been acceptable or ordained by God for a man to beat his wife. As I'm sure you are aware, it is extremely hard to argue in favor of that. Nobody is saying that it should be done now, or that it is permitted by religious law now, since as Baha'is we believe that the dispensation of Islam has ended.

If this is a stumbling block to your possibly accepting Muhammad as a prophet of God, so be it. I'm sure it is not the only one. It is a challenge for any thoughtful person. For me, I presume that the original context in Arabia was worse, wives were beaten or killed frequently, and Muhammad at least defined a specific set of circumstances where it could be used, excluding worse punishments. Since the circumstances were defined, it doesn't mean that husbands were required to beat their wives. there is certainly room for interpretation that it never should be done ideally, if the circumstances can be avoided. I don't know, as they say, God works in mysterious ways, we can't always see the wisdom behind it.

As to whether there were any prominent women scholars and theologians in Islam the answer is yes, here:

Women in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 05-11-2013, 08:07 AM   #467
Jcc
Senior Member
 
Jcc's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Edwardsville, Illinois, USA
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post

Also JCC what is the proposed interpretive framework you offer in the gospels case to say some things in the gospels must be interpreted literally and some spiritually. What is the spiritual interpretation of Christ eating fish and saying that ghosts don't eat fish, as if the point Luke was trying to make in quoting this is a point emphasise that Jesus was really there with the apostles after the ressurection?
The interpretive framework is first, if other scripture makes it clear that a particular passage should not be interpreted literally. There are examples in the Gospels where Jesus says pretty clearly that this is the case. Many of the prophecies in the Old Testament were explained in a way that differed from the Jewish understanding of them, but since the New Testament is authoritative, we can know that the spiritual interpretation is the correct one. If Baha'u'llah is true then that also applies to His interpretations, they are authoritative.

Note that especially is needed with prophecies, because prophecies that refer to things that will happen centuries later can not be made literal, future conditions would not be comprehensible to people of an earlier age, besides you can imagine all sorts of false pretenders that would show up if a prophecy were too literal "the Promised One will appear at 8 AM Monday morning April 30th 2013" God is wiser than that.

The second way we can distinguish what is literal or not in scripture is to apply logic, and reliable facts. You use the example of Christ's resurrection. You make a good point that there were some explicit events such as eating fish, or Thomas placing his hand in Christ's wounds to emphasize that He had not appeared as a ghost or spirit, but was present physically with the Apostles. Here is where I would apply logic:

1. If God performs miracles, Christ's resurrection could be a miracle (it was).
2. Miracles are by definition supernatural, they are beyond normal natural occurrences.
3. The Gospels say that it was not imagined, nor a haunting as by a ghost.
4. There were physical manifestations that made it clear that it was not a ghost.
5. There were also aspects of Christ's appearances that make it clear that He was not returned to physical existence as if He were never crucified. First, He still had the slash in His side. It was not a case of being healed from His wounds so His body could go back to functioning normally.
6. Also, He appeared and disappeared, He did not have normal persistence as His body used to have before being crucified. The apostles were in a room with the door bolted and Christ suddenly appeared.

So looking at the facts as presented in Scripture and applying some logic, we can see that Christ was resurrected in truth, but not returned to life in a normal physical body. The resurrection was not physical in that sense.
 
Old 05-11-2013, 07:45 PM   #468
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2013
From: forest falls california
Posts: 1,773
Misconception: Wife beating is allowed in The Quran

Background: This topic is one of the most controversial regarding The Quran. The mainstream teaching is that it allows a husband to hit his wife as a last resort in specific circumstances. Some have argued that this means it sanctions domestic violence against women. Whilst this is the prevalent view, even amongst Muslims, it is mired in many flaws, which will be discussed below.

The first and perhaps most important point to mention is that this view is based only upon the use of one word in chapter 4, verse 34 of The Quran shown below:

The men are supporters/maintainers of the women with what God preferred/bestowed on some of them over others and with what they spent of their money, so the righteous women are dutiful/obedient; guardians/protectors to the unseen with what God guarded/protected. And as for those women you fear their uprising/disloyalty, then you shall advise them, and (then) abandon them in the bed, and (then) idriboo them. If they obeyed you, then seek not against them a way; Truly, God is High, Great. [4:34]
And if you (authority) feared a rift between them two, then appoint a judge from his family and a judge from hers. If they both want to reconcile, then God will bring agreement between them. God is Knowledgeable, Expert. [4:35]
The Arabic word idriboo is commonly translated as hit/beat/strike, however the flaws with this understanding are as follows:

The derivative idriboo is formed from one of the most multiple meaning and diversely used words (DaRaBa) in the Arabic language, and is used in several ways in The Quran itself.
There is not one clear occurrence of this word meaning "beat" anywhere else in The Quran, and in almost all cases, this meaning is problematic or would not make sense.
No Classical Arabic (the language The Quran is written in) dictionary gives the meaning of "beat" in a comparable example and none reference 4:34 at all.
When The Quran uses this word to mean a literal/physical strike/hit, the preposition "bi" (with/by) is always used, but there is no such use in 4:34.
This understanding causes internal contradictions within The Quran, and this is also probably why no commentator, past or present, uses The Quran itself to justify this view.
There is no consensus amongst traditional commentators on the origin and interpretation of this verse, except on perhaps the basic points.
If "beat/strike" is chosen, it would cause inconsistencies amongst Traditional Hadith (narrations) and Classical Arabic dictionaries, which show a variance in view.
It contradicts the alleged reaction of prophet Muhammad to wife beating, in which he is reportedly to have found it unjust and said woman have the right to retaliate. The traditional story goes that he was over ruled by 4:34, apparently.

The evidence from The Quran suggests the correct meaning of the word in this case would be "cite" or "indicate" them to the authority, hence authority involvement in 4:35. This also fits in with its usage elsewhere with direct objects.

It is strongly recommended to weigh and consider the following study which presents a very detailed and comprehensive analysis of the claim of wife beating and domestic violence in Islam (Wife beating in islam? The Quran strikes back.). It also notes that the vast majority take it to mean hit/strike/beat with varying degrees of application.
 
Old 05-11-2013, 08:15 PM   #469
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2013
From: forest falls california
Posts: 1,773
Idriboo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
You haven't answered my question in all of that text.

Was it a good and holy thing to beat ones wife when she was not listening to you? As Muhammad mandated in the quran/ Even if you say this is now wrong, during the time of muhammad was it an acceptable God ordained action? I might also say in concerns to Christ that while he did do the will of the father and spoke the words of the father (being the wisdom or word of God thats pretty much his perogative) he also said he gives up his life of his own accord and that he can raise it. Not God the father but he can do these things which belong only to God which moses and Muhammad and Mirza Hussain could not do.
Idriboo
This Arabic word, according to what I just read, has a hundred possible meanings, of which "beat" is not an accurate translation at all. I googled the word idriboo and read a selection entitled: "Wife beating in Islam? The Quran strikes back."
To me it is helpful to gain a better understanding of such flash-points, for they cause so much separation and distrust among people of different cultures. There is much to be gained by researching the topic more deeply. Also, I think that it is good when someone such as yourself puts these questions to the full. How else can we resolve such things which stand in the way of all of God's creatures getting along, such as this issue exemplifies?
Let us examine Luke 14:26, which says: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, even their own life - such a person cannot be my disciple."
On the face of it, Christianity is based upon hate...
 
Old 05-11-2013, 09:46 PM   #470
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2013
From: forest falls california
Posts: 1,773
2nd point

I might also say in concerns to Christ that while he did do the will of the father and spoke the words of the father (being the wisdom or word of God thats pretty much his perogative) he also said he gives up his life of his own accord and that he can raise it. Not God the father but he can do these things which belong only to God which moses and Muhammad and Mirza Hussain could not do.[/QUOTE]

When the Bab was being taken from His cell (the first time) in Tabriz to be executed, He said to His executioner, "There is no power on earth which can prevent me from finishing what I have yet to say." He was dictating His final words to His amanuensis. They proceeded, however, to take Him and suspend Him, along with a follower tied by ropes to Him, up the wall of the Barracks Square of Tabriz, well above the ground, so that the 750 soldiers could all aim and fire their rifles at them.
When the smoke cleared, the Bab was nowhere in sight and His companion was on the ground, bewildered. The head of the regiment, fearing the crowd, showed them the ropes which bound them, shot to pieces. He then took his regiment of Christian Armenian soldiers away from the scene, vowing never to have anything to do with harming the Bab, for he regarded it as a miracle.
They searched frantically for the Bab, finally finding Him back in His prison cell dictating His final Message to His followers. About two hours after the first attempt was made to kill Him, He said, "I have finished. You may now do as you wish."
They brought in a Muslim regiment of similar number and when the shots were fired, both He and His follower were riddled with bullets, although their faces were not touched. Their bodies were cast in a mote on the edge of town and guards were posted. However, the believers, after a couple of days, were able to regain the bodies of the Bab and His follower in the night. I have visited their tomb on Mt Carmel.
John 5:19 says that "the Son can do nothing of Himself..."
He also says that the words He brings are not His own, but what He hears the Father say...
Yes, He laid down His life as a sacrifice willingly in submission to the Will of God. So did the Bab.
What I think we are wrestling with here is the human body, with mortal and physical limitations, and the Divine natures of the Manifestations of God.
The Bab said, "The substance wherewith God hath created Me is not the clay out of which others have been formed. He hath conferred upon Me that which the worldly-wise can never comprehend, nor the faithful discover... I am one of the sustaining pillars of the Primal Word of God. Whosoever hath recognized Me, hath known all that is true and right, and hath attained all that is good and seemly; and whosoever hath failed to recognize Me, hath turned away from all that is true and right and hath succumbed to everything evil and unseemly."
Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am."
Krsna said, "I am born from age to age..."
 
Old 05-12-2013, 12:18 AM   #471
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 865
JCC I will ask for one female scholar in the ancient world and I will ask for some more that exist in the Islamic world. Suadi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and other places. Also you are not addressing my question, was it a good and holy thing to beat (or whatever word you prefer, scourge, slap tap, whatever) ones wife into submission because she did not listen to you, if you were a seventh century muslim? You want to avoid saying that this was god ordained and I know why, it’s a terrible stumbling block for you, that the same God who revealed this apparently thinks Men and women are equal. But you say that they were not required to beat them, when in fact the surah says they were to beat them if they were disobedient as if they had to be punished like children. Why don’t you want to simply come out and say what the quran says?

Now I am not going to grant your prophet, because I don’t see him as true. I want you to explain the spiritual significance of the gospel of Luke going out of its way to present a physically resurrected Christ who eats fish, talks with desciples and commissions them. I don’t think you can do this on the merits of the gospel alone. You have to rely on your prophet. I think the difference here is that Christians have and do make arguments from the Old testament for Christ and defend the arguments which Christ made, or allusions to which the apostles made, though I am not in the position to do that.

But what I am in the position to do is comment on the absurdity of bahai interpretative ideas of the gospels and say that the gospels would have been impossible for anyone to understand them, even those in the tradition of these gospels who knew who wrote these gospels in the churches. Think about that, we have as Christians misinterpreted the gospel since it was first written within the very community of which the gospels were written. This of course opens up a bigger problem for bahai, that you have no garuntee of your interpretation of your own works as well because the prophet has left you. If we Christians failed to keep the truth (and don't say we didn't fail we both know you think otherwise) why should you have any confidence in what you believe in right now? Of course this is a tangent but I feel it revelent and important and if you like we can make a new thread to discuss it.

Lets go over your reasons one by one.

1. When you say Christ's ressurection you mean a spirit of renewal in the apostles which wouldn't be a miracle but a change of heart at most. Of which is neither miraculous or special all though it begs an explanation as to why the apostles came to believe in it in the first palce. They professed ressurection, however Christ's ressurection was merely their renewal of belief? That doesn't make sense
2. Except Christ's ressurection to you was no miracle, because it was merely the apostles having a renewal of belief. Thje Virgin birth is a miracle of which some bahai want to obstinately deny, trying desperately to give a scientific and physical explanation to it, going so far as to make Mary a Hermaphrodite shamefully.
3. They must have been imagined in your world view though as the ressurection, again for the bahai is a renewal of belief. These are imagined circumstances in your interpretation which have no bearing on reality hence I cannot comprehend what luke was thinking in presenting a Jesus eating ish and emphasising "No Im really here, im not a ghost, look I can eat and everything."
4. What physical manifestations are you talking about? Christ eating the fish? This is an imagined scenerio only in the imagination of Luke that didn't really happen, in fact most of the gospels didn't really happen according to the bahai. Clarify this point
5. You are ignoring the part where he eats fish in front of the apostles and invites Thomas to touch his side, but I suppose he was teasing Thomas and it never really happened. Or the fact that the gospels depict Jesus actually talking to his apostles, for forty days no less, expositing the scripture. Or should we interpret this as if the apsotles simply read the bible and came to the full understanding of it and completely failed to teach it to anyone beyond their immediate circle (Which is ultimately what happened in the face of patristic ideas concerning the faith). In fact how does one interpret the forty days? Was the spirit of renewel only in them for forty days until Pentecost? That cannot be right as the apostles were even more reverent after this ressurection experience and the coming of the comforter to them (Ie the holy spirit at pentacost) It’s a world of interpretive nightmare. How does one interpret spiritually, them talking in multiple toungues and the people all around the world understanding they were doing so and thinking they were drunk? I could go on with the questions which demand to be answered if we are to interpret every miracle as not really have happened.
6. Yes it was not a normal body, so what? As you admitted God can perform miracles which do not obey natural laws. Why cannot Jesus’s physically resurrected Body appear and dissapear? I could be like Calvin and say that Jesus snuck in through the window but I don’t need to because I accept that Christ could do these things.
Now when we look at the gospel and don’t selectively edit out the miracles we don’t like which go against our theology we see a plainly physically raised Christ who eats with his desciples who is meeting them in town as the angel says (I guess the spirit of renewal wasn’t in the apostles at the empty tomb). By the way how do you explain that empty tomb? Who stole his body and for what reason? He was given an honourable burial, who in their right mind would steal the body? Or do manifestations bodies disappear like in star wars? How do you explain Paul becoming blind? Did he literally stare at the sun? But how does baptism cure him his condition then as your eyes won't be cured normally by that route. Do you see the problems your interpretative framework offers?

"Every miracle except this one for whatever reason, didn't happen and we must accept all of these other ones in a spiritual manner."

This is an absurd reading of the New testament Gospels which fails to read the gospels for themselves or in the community of which they are written. Would you agree with me and say the apostles failed to get the gospel through to the churches they established? You could never agree to the patristic interpretation of things after all and they were the only ones who can be traced to the apostles.

Now dale if you are going to deny all of the translations and say they are wrong which word would you use? You are obviously an authority on this so please tell me the word that should be used and then I would then ask you is it then permissible to apply that action of that word to women? Whom are disobedient in the quran. Women are bound to obey their husbands nonetheless in the quran, something I think Bahai will object to.
As for you misinterpretation of Luke dale we know that Jesus is not telling his desciples to literally hate everyone, only that we must love him more than anyone. Why are we to love Jesus more than any manifestation or person? Why not God? Why not say love God more than anyone or else you are not worthy of God?

As for your account of the bab, I really couldn’t care less. Satan can appear as an angel of light and if we are going to quote Krishna why don’t you worship him? Krishna does say he was everything, the all encompassing existence. I don’t think Krishna helps you. The bab could not raise himself. Could the bab claim to be the very wisdom of God? His eternal world? Do I need to be found worthy before the bab or do i need to be found worthy before Christ? JEsus is greater than anyone you can bring to the table.

Last edited by Iconodule; 05-12-2013 at 12:42 AM.
 
Old 05-12-2013, 04:31 AM   #472
Jcc
Senior Member
 
Jcc's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Edwardsville, Illinois, USA
Posts: 493
Iconodule,

I would ask you to read again what I said in post #467. You are saying that I believe the exact opposite of what I just said, which means either you didn't understand or you think that I meant the opposite of what I said. I assure you that when I say that the Gospel accounts are true I mean it. I am simply looking at all the facts that refer to the Resurrection.
 
Old 05-12-2013, 06:46 AM   #473
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Rockville, MD, USA
Posts: 1,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcc View Post
You make a good point that there were some explicit events such as eating fish, or Thomas placing his hand in Christ's wounds to emphasize that He had not appeared as a ghost or spirit....
EXCEPT, of course, that the text never says that such a thing actually happened!

All it says is that Thomas was INVITED to do so, not that he actually did it.

And as to the post-resurrection events generally, in my understanding the Baha'i Faith considers ALL the post-crucifixion stuff to be spiritual metaphor, not literal.

Peace, :-)

Bruce
 
Old 05-12-2013, 12:12 PM   #474
Jcc
Senior Member
 
Jcc's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Edwardsville, Illinois, USA
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceDLimber View Post


EXCEPT, of course, that the text never says that such a thing actually happened!

All it says is that Thomas was INVITED to do so, not that he actually did it.

And as to the post-resurrection events generally, in my understanding the Baha'i Faith considers ALL the post-crucifixion stuff to be spiritual metaphor, not literal.

Peace, :-)

Bruce
I will read the relevant Gospel sections again. You are probably correct that Thomas did not actually put his hand in the wounds. The point of the episode was to have faith, not whether there was a physical body there to touch.

However, I think calling everything in the Gospels about the resurrection as spiritual metaphore may not be completely accurate either. That is to say, there were spiritual truths that were shown, which do have symbolic or metaphorical meaning, but it is also likely in my opinion that he Apostles experienced something, which they believed to be encounters with Christ, and I also believe they encountered Christ. If they had actual experiences, that is not metaphorical to them, although it is rich in symbolism and significance for the future development of Christianity.

I know that the Baha'i teachings state that the resurrection was not a a bodily resurrection, and I have not said anything different that. I was making the point above that when you read the Gospel accounts carefully, it is clear that it could not have been a physical body in the normal sense, since He would appear and disappear suddenly.
 
Old 05-12-2013, 09:54 PM   #475
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2013
From: forest falls california
Posts: 1,773
Ressurection

As for your account of the bab, I really couldn’t care less. Satan can appear as an angel of light and if we are going to quote Krishna why don’t you worship him? Krishna does say he was everything, the all encompassing existence. I don’t think Krishna helps you. The bab could not raise himself. Could the bab claim to be the very wisdom of God? His eternal world? Do I need to be found worthy before the bab or do i need to be found worthy before Christ? JEsus is greater than anyone you can bring to the table.[/QUOTE]

Dear friend,
How do I recount to you the validity and coherence of my beliefs? I was raised on a Sioux Indian reservation amongst descendants of the survivors of Wounded Knee, who were slaughtered by the 7th Calvary following the assassination of Sitting Bull. What is roughly translated into English as the "Ghost Dance" religion, from visions of Wovoka, and his father before him, that "Christ is now upon the earth. He moves as in a cloud." swept through Indian country and so unsettled the European settlers, among whom were my own grandparents, who homesteaded in 1895, that the occupying army was moved to destroy the movement down to the last man, woman, and child, or nearly so. The few who survived were gathered up and brought to a church in Pine Ridge a few days after Christmas. Above the altar were the words "Peace on earth. Goodwill to men."
Now I mention this not to create any detraction of the true religion of Jesus, the Christ, for His is indeed the true religion of God. Rather, I wish to make an idea known to you concerning the resurrection of the soul, from the Native American point of view, and experience, beyond mere intellectual processes. This believe, and tangible experience to those to whom it has occurred, is hard to express in words, so the faculty of the image-ination must be utilized. In my own experience, however, this faculty is limited. Fasting, or rather, Hanblechiyapi, Crying for a Vision, sometimes enables insights which transcend the limited capacities of the mind.
Paul had such a vision. He saw Christ. His eyes were not physically blinded, as literalists interpret from "Something like scales fell from his eyes", for this is literal interpretation. His experience was real, but paranormal, if such term can be used (not as the new agers use, however).
But what I wish to say has to do with the definite knowledge of "knowing" that my relatives are alive and with me, even though the fabric of their bodies has been punctured and killed, as was the fabric of the physical body of Jesus, which God had woven. For even though you kill a man, yet you do not kill his soul, and this can be known, but not to people who are without faith. It really cannot be explained in words beyond this, for its reality is such that in the realm of words, no such expressed language can exist.
It takes an open mind. That is, that spiritual portion of the mind which can "see" beyond physical limitations, and the expression of the symbolism inherent in words from the intellectual faculty, which cannot be reduced to the coarse format of ordinary language. This is not said to try and prove a point, for no such points can be proven. They are either understood or not understood, according to the capacity, as well as the will of, and purity of heart of, the soul who would seek to come to know.
No Baha'i can speak with authority, nor interpret the Holy and sacred Words of God for another. There are no Baha'i experts in authority to say such and such, or so and so. So please understand, my friend, that as one who fully and absolutely believes in the resurrected Christ, as I so, that I am sincere in speaking to you about this most sacred matter, and do so with my heart exposed, for as in the case of the Lakota, who were slaughtered for having the distinct courage to stand against their attackers, were filled with such courage as put fear and shame into the hearts of those who perpetrated such an unholy act.
When a man "knows", really knows, that he cannot be killed, he will evince such courage as to wither the soul of those who would seek to exterminate him. At such time, under such conditions, the aggressor must either come to his senses and desist from his aggression, or act upon the instincts of his lower nature. Unfortunately, at Wounded Knee, the latter course was followed.
Judas, after selling out his Lord for thirty pieces of silver, realized after the crucifixion of Christ, what he had done. Then went out and hung himself. Peter denied his Lord three times, yet later became the Rock upon which Christ built his church. How vast the difference in these two souls, both of whom were disciples of Jesus the Christ.
Perplexing as it may be, the matter of "He entered the room, not using the door", first suggests that the risen Christ appeared to the disciples even in the same sense as "Wherever two or more gather and make mention of Me, there I am also, and that is My church." Thus, to make mention of Him, is to receive Him: "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe"
That the accounts recorded by men also suggest that He "appeared" to many include that of Mary, the first to "see" Him afterwards. She was walking along the road, as the account reports, finally realizing that He was "with" her.
In such a literal society, where people were confounded with such statements as "Ye must be born again", and "Let the dead bury the dead", there existed no capacity to separate within the storytelling the resurrection without the body. It is even as Jesus stated in John 3:13 "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Yet we all accept that our Lord was born of Mary, not descended from heaven, in the physical sense. Is this not correct? Therefore, He Who "is in heaven", is not a statement of place, of His physical body. Is this not correct? And likewise, His ascension "up to heaven" cannot be interpreted to the movement of His physical body into the physical heaven, or sky. The same word was used for heaven and sky at the time. There was no means to speak of heaven as other than also speaking of sky.
Needing to recount in the language of meaning, there is a mystery. That of the fish and the wounds. People do utilyze metaphors in the means of communication, both to hide the truth of matters to the unbelievers, as well as to reveal the truth of matters to those "who have eyes to see".
As to the matter of the empty tomb, even as the remains of the Bab were removed in order to prevent their further desecration, it is reasonable to "consider" that the followers of Jesus might do also. Is this not possible? Hence, the empty tomb itself as a proof of physical resurrection is insufficient.
These matters are indeed stumbling blocks to some...
May God bless you, my friend. With the utmost sincerity, Dale
 
Old 05-12-2013, 11:09 PM   #476
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcc View Post
Iconodule,

I would ask you to read again what I said in post #467. You are saying that I believe the exact opposite of what I just said, which means either you didn't understand or you think that I meant the opposite of what I said. I assure you that when I say that the Gospel accounts are true I mean it. I am simply looking at all the facts that refer to the Resurrection.
Clarify your position. I know the bahai considere ressurection to be the renewal of the apostles belief and you neccessarily it seems have to interpret every miracle besides the virgin birth in a spiritual or non literal manner. Hence why I ask what is the spiritual meaning of Luke trying to present a physical Jesus eating with his desciples as if he was not a ghost. You deny ressurection in any sense, Jesus's body was dead and rotting. Tell me where I am wrong.
 
Old 05-12-2013, 11:12 PM   #477
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 865
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceDLimber View Post


EXCEPT, of course, that the text never says that such a thing actually happened!

All it says is that Thomas was INVITED to do so, not that he actually did it.

And as to the post-resurrection events generally, in my understanding the Baha'i Faith considers ALL the post-crucifixion stuff to be spiritual metaphor, not literal.

Peace, :-)

Bruce
So what did Jesus just pull away and say "Well I didn't mean you could really touch me."? But your interpretation of the new testament makes no sense in the overal narrative of the new testament. Where are the signs in the text to ignore a spiritual reading of the virgin birth and ignore a literal reading of the ressurection? There are none, this is simply the bahai religion interpreting onto a text which has never by the community which received these texts been interpreted in such a way.

Thats really it right there, that bahai ultimately have to believe the gospels and the entire new testament were impossible to interpret from Day one. and I imagine when someone claims to be the next manifestation he will say the same about your texts and thus bahai and humanity (in the bahai view) are doomed to never understand the truth.
 
Old 05-12-2013, 11:19 PM   #478
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 865
Actually his ascension into heaven, not the actual heaven which is immaterial (wherever Christ's physical body is right now I do not know) can be interepreted literally and has been interpreted within that light. I simply ask how do you say every other miracle int he new testament didn't really happen except for this one virgin birth. This is despite the fact that the texts of the new testament show Jesus performing miracles to show forth God. That is the man was born blind so that Christ might heal him. I suppose the bahai interpretation is a spiritual blindless but that is contradicted by the fact others say he could not see and those others were the enemies of Jesus. THe bahai method of determing what hte gospels mean are so selective, random and counterproductive to interpreting the text. You base it solely on what a few men said, not what those in the community who received these texts and were able read them in their natural language as well as in the theology of the church. Which is better? A modern understanding which undermines everything in the gospels and makes them a document SOLELY dependant on an author 2000 years later, or books that were designed to communicate the truth effectively?

The gnostic interpretation of the gospels is a failed bid from the begining. For instance I would say under bahai understanding we must interpret the narrative of Christ being tempted by Satan (remember satan doesn't exist) as being one reflecting the internal mental struggle by Christ. That he considered testing God, that he considered abusing God needlessly, that he considered ruling the world and making himself God (Satan says to Christ to worship him, so obviously this must reflect Christ's desire to rule the world without the father). I challange you to make a better interpretation based on your framework.
 
Old 05-12-2013, 11:31 PM   #479
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 865
Regaurding Paul’s blindness.

When he rose from the ground he could see nothing, although his eyes were open, and they had to lead him by the hand, to take him into Damascus. Acts 9 8

He could see nothing despite his eyes being open. You interpret this as being spiritual blind, but why does he need a hand to Damascus if he can see fine? Why can’t interpret the very next verse saying he neither ate nor drink, meaning he neither ate nor drink spiritual things of God, he was blind from God, but he was eating in reality. Do you see where this sort of hyper spiritualised interpretation leads/ You have ultimately made the document of the newtestament a non historical work which does not reflect reality. We Know nothing therefore of the details of Paul because we can’t be sure which narrative is spiritual and which is literal because there are no indicators within the text to say otherwise. You cannot say Paul went and preached Christ; no we must interpret this to mean he was only praying for the world.

And you do not believe in the resurrected Christ. You believe in the renewal of belief in the apostles and nothing more. The apostles preached resurrection are you telling me their hearers would hear them say “We have come to tell you of the renewal of belief within us! This dead man has renewed our faith!” This is hardly the sort of thing which would convince anyone, failed messianic movements didn’t produce such faith in dead messiahs and I see no reason to suppose that it happened for the apostles.

Again there is no positively good way to interpret the bible from the bahai perspective, you might as well say we know nothing about it because you do know nothing about it. Now you try to undermine the empty tomb of Christ with the example of a fairly modern Heretic but that doesn’t compare. We aren’t living in first century Judea, we are living in the modern age as well as this Bab was and we must accept certain things. Who would want to steal the body of Christ? Who? You need a comprehensive theory as to who would do this to say its unconvinving. The apostles were dejected in their faith and had no reason to take the body, the romans would not want the body unsecured along with the jews because of what he said. If we take the bahai narrative the apostles merely had their renewed belief in three days and wouldn’t need to steal the body. Who stole it and why? Why does the angel tell them Christ is going before you? Why were women in the tomb? You might as well say you just have faith against the history.
 
Old 05-13-2013, 03:32 AM   #480
Jcc
Senior Member
 
Jcc's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Edwardsville, Illinois, USA
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
Clarify your position. I know the bahai considere ressurection to be the renewal of the apostles belief and you neccessarily it seems have to interpret every miracle besides the virgin birth in a spiritual or non literal manner. Hence why I ask what is the spiritual meaning of Luke trying to present a physical Jesus eating with his desciples as if he was not a ghost. You deny ressurection in any sense, Jesus's body was dead and rotting. Tell me where I am wrong.
Ok, I will try to be as clear as I can.

1. God performs miracles, including through His Manifestations (Christ, Baha'u'llah and others). We have many accounts of the Bab and Baha'u'llah performing miracles, and that was only a century and a half ago, so there are many written accounts, and verbal accounts through just a few generations. Based on that, there is no reason not to believe that Christ performed them also, some of which are recorded in the Gospels.
2. Baha'u'llah said not to emphasize miracles, as they may be the cause of faith to those who witness or experience them, but they are not any proof for others. Jesus also said similar things [Mat 14:4, John 20:29]. I really think that Christians have misunderstood the significance of Christ's miracles because they ignored what Christ Himself said about them.
3. When you look at all the accounts of the resurrection in the New Testament, it is clear, from the Bible itself, that Christ's resurrection was not in a normal physical body.
4. Events can be both literal, and full of meaning, significance and metaphor. Most people think it is either one or the other, but if God performs a miracle, why would it be just random with no meaning?
 
Reply

  Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Interfaith

Tags
christianity, islam, progressive



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook @bahaiforums RSS


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2006 - 2018 Bahai Forums. All rights reserved.