Infallibility

[CG Didymus]

I would say, The scientific facts are independent of time. But the Messengers of God always spoke to people in their level of understanding, and They did not explain science to people beyond what those people could understand and accept. Their mission has not been to teach details of science to people. They have alluded to somethings without going through the details of science, and they used scientific knowledge which the people were already familiar in their own time. For instance Jesus did not explain about nuclear power to people in His time, but that does not mean He did not know. No, He knew it all, but His mission was more on the spiritual nature of human, rather than the material world.

Well Moses didn't write the book of Joshua. So who did? And even if Baha'is believe Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, no manifestation was involved in writing the rest of the Bible. So I'm sticking with the writers embellishing the stories.

 

[CG Didymus]

OK - be sure to let us know when they figure out how to fertilize a human ovum without a sperm. I don't know about the sun standing still, but I reckon the earth will definitely stop moving for many people if they ever manage that!

Funny, but the people that wrote about the virgin birth also believed in Adam being made out of clay and Eve made out of one of his ribs. And they also believed Jesus came back to life.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Of course the first human had a father and a mother - they just weren't human - the "appearance" of the "first man" was a speciation event in an incredibly long process of evolution not a miraculous moment of creation.

It has been said that Man was always going to be man no matter what form we have been in the past and what we will be in the future, there is no random mutation happening.

It could be, many millions of years ago that man swam in a vast sea. The birth process of man into this world today, will reflect the longer evolutionary process that Humanity as a whole also goes through.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do Baha'is believe that all life evolved from simpler life forms?

All is created with a potential. Man has been created with a capacity of all that potential.

We can look at the seed of a giant oak and not have the vision to see the potential of the seed. That does not mean the seed does not contain the potential. If it is nurtured to bring that potential out, that is when we see it in all its glory.

Humanity is now emerging from adolescence.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

Funny, but the people that wrote about the virgin birth also believed in Adam being made out of clay and Eve made out of one of his ribs. And they also believed Jesus came back to life.

I know! Sometimes it looks to me like the Baha'is go through the other religious traditions as if they were a kind of convenience store for mythology - I'll have a virgin birth and a bit of baby Jesus talking - not all of it though - and we definitely don't want any of that resurrection stuff or the sun standing still - don't like that at all...OK, what else - we'll have a bit of the creation story - not too much though - and some Gospel of John but not so much of Matthew and the rest - oh yes and some of those prophecies that you can twist to fit the middle of the 19th century please - yes that should just about do it...thanks for that - and you can keep the rest of your traditions - we don't want it thank you very much.

 

[siti]

It has been said that Man was always going to be man

It has been said otherwise too. Something having been said doesn't make it true.

We can look at the seed of a giant oak and not have the vision to see the potential of the seed. That does not mean the seed does not contain the potential. If it is nurtured to bring that potential out, that is when we see it in all its glory.

And if the squirrel sees it first it will just become part of a squirrel instead. Which is precisely what might have become of "potential" humankind if T-Rex had been a bit more adept at snapping up those pesky little furry things running between its legs before the meteor struck and wiped out the dinosaurs. Somebody - I have no idea who - once said something like "you can count the seeds in an apple, but you can't count the apples in the seed" - and that is the point of evolution - it is like a painting - it is explained (perhaps) by the thoughts of the artist, by the colours and shades he uses, by the forms and shapes he constructs on the canvas - but to say it is exactly what he intended is to suggest that the work of art was completed before a single brush stroke had been applied. There is no way to know how 'evolution' will turn out - that is kind of the point. So you can cherry pick miracles all you like, but if you accept evolution, you have to accept that homo sapiens was not the reason for evolution - evolution is the reason for homo sapiens. You can't cherry pick scientific facts and pretend that you are in tune with science. It just doesn't work like that.

Humanity is now emerging from adolescence.

But not, it seems, from infantile credulity.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

and that is the point of evolution - it is like a painting - it is explained (perhaps) by the thoughts of the artist, by the colours and shades he uses, by the forms and shapes he constructs on the canvas - but to say it is exactly what he intended is to suggest that the work of art was completed before a single brush stroke had been applied.

That is the suggestion. God is the artist and knows the beginning and the end and all in between, this is the Most Great Infallibility, which is the essential infallibility of all the Messengers.

I will offer this one quote from Baha'u'llah;

:...As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God's creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.... "

I like to see it like the end scene in the Men in black # 2 movie. Just when science thinks they will find the beginning, they open the locker door only to find 100's of thousands of other doors.

Still a rookie

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't think any kind of genuine evidence or lack thereof presents a problem for Baha'is. And that makes for repetitive statements of credulity (witness the rest of your post) - but not for meaningful debate.

In regards the gospels what is there to debate? If the first gospels were written 40 years after Christ was crucified it’s hard to establish with certainty what Christ said or did. The two gospels widely considered by conservatives to be written by eyewitnesses are Matthew and John. There’s a reasonable case for John the apostle having written the gospel of John but there is no consensus. The evidence for Matthew being a contemporary of Christ appears problematic.

So what are we left with? Stories written by second or third generation Christians based on the Teachings of the Apostles or more likely the traditions of their Preaching passed down through word of mouth.

How can we know what is in the gospels reflects the Teachings of Christ? It comes down to personal experience. Prior to becoming a Baha’i I felt my life touched by the Holy Spirit and utterly transformed. That’s not very logical, is it? Yet that is my experience and why I believe in Christ. My faith was confirmed by experience.

You used to be a Christian. Were you never touched by a Power that transcended this world? If so, how? If not, why did you consider yourself a Christian?

 

[siti]

So what are we left with? Stories written by second or third generation Christians based on the Teachings of the Apostles or more likely the traditions of their Preaching passed down through word of mouth.

But surely that makes it all the more absurd to assume that a 19th century Persian prophet from a Muslim background would have any better idea what Christ said and did. And since the teachings of the Baha'i faith affirm some of the most outrageous mythological nonsense (virgin birth and all that) I conclude that they have no more idea what Jesus really said and did than I do. What your religion currently does is trash the Christian tradition and pick over the bones to see if anything can be salvaged for its own purposes. It is disrespectful to the Christian tradition and preposterous in terms of establishing a more rational faith.

For me - I have no problem respecting the "stories written by second or third generation Christians" as stories. I don't feel the need to prove their historicity - they are expressions of their faith - sometimes with a kernel of truth in the narrative, sometimes more blatantly poetic - myths and legends borrowed from other cultures and adapted to their purposes. But they are stories about their faith, not historical narratives. The problem we have now is that far too many unintelligent people presume to teach God's "truth" on the basis of a flawed body of literature of obviously human origination and far too many gullible people are happy to pin everything they accept on expressions of faith without any evidence whatsoever. Faith is not evidence.

 

[siti]

That is the suggestion. God is the artist and knows the beginning and the end and all in between, this is the Most Great Infallibility, which is the essential infallibility of all the Messengers.

I will offer this one quote from Baha'u'llah;

:...As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God's creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.... "

We can trade quotes if you like - here's one from Henri Bergson:

“The finished portrait is explained by the features of the model, by the nature of the artist, by the colors spread out on the palette; but, even with the knowledge of what explains it, no one, not even the artist, could have foreseen exactly what the portrait would be, for to predict it would have been to produce it before it was produced - an absurd hypothesis which is its own refutation.”​

Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution, 1907 (translated by Arthur Mitchell, 1911)

I like to see it like the end scene in the Men in black # 2 movie. Just when science thinks they will find the beginning, they open the locker door only to find 100's of thousands of other doors.

That idea resonates - we have no idea about "the beginning" - perhaps there really wasn't a beginning at all - just a self-existing and endlessly creative reality. One could call that "God" and every cosmological argument is satisfied. But it doesn't imply teleology - if anything the opposite. It suggests that with an infinite propensity for creativity and no limit of time, absolutely every possibility - including the emergence of humans - was inevitable - and therefore nothing special.

 

[Vinayaka]

Faith is not evidence.

You could say this a million times and it would still be refuted. All we all have is faith. Back to the OP: I am infallible because I say I am infallible is not evidence at all. It's evidence of gullibility for those who think it's evidence.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But surely that makes it all the more absurd to assume that a 19th century Persian prophet from a Muslim background would have any better idea what Christ said and did. And since the teachings of the Baha'i faith affirm some of the most outrageous mythological nonsense (virgin birth and all that) I conclude that they have no more idea what Jesus really said and did than I do. What your religion currently does is trash the Christian tradition and pick over the bones to see if anything can be salvaged for its own purposes. It is disrespectful to the Christian tradition and preposterous in terms of establishing a more rational faith.

The same argument could be made as to what Christianity has done to Judaism, Islam has done to Christianity, and even what Buddha did with Hinduism.

At the heart of the Abrahamic Faiths we have an Omniscient God who created the Universe. That’s always going to ruffle a few feathers. With that in mind we can not prove or disprove the virgin birth. We can the resurrection and the creation of earth six thousand years ago.

As far as I can see the Baha’i Faith excels Christianity in leaps and bounds when it comes to adapting to the modern world including science and reasoning.

The Baha’i Faith isn’t trashing Christianity but you’re clearly trashing the Baha’i Faith.

For me - I have no problem respecting the "stories written by second or third generation Christians" as stories. I don't feel the need to prove their historicity - they are expressions of their faith - sometimes with a kernel of truth in the narrative, sometimes more blatantly poetic - myths and legends borrowed from other cultures and adapted to their purposes. But they are stories about their faith, not historical narratives. The problem we have now is that far too many unintelligent people presume to teach God's "truth" on the basis of a flawed and obviously human body of literature and far too many gullible people are happy to pin everything they accept on expressions of faith without any evidence whatsoever. Faith is not evidence.

Faith isn’t evidence and it’s true that the faith of many Christians is founded on beliefs that can easily be disproved. I can not see Christianity being renewed except through a Messiah or Divine Messenger whose authority equals or eclipses Christ Himself.

 

[siti]

You could say this a million times and it would still be refuted. All we all have is faith.

Agreed - I was responding to Adrian who had presented a whole stack of statements of faith as evidence that some (but not all) of the Christian scriptures are to be believed. Faith is not evidence of infallibility is what I was really getting at. Statements of faith are not appropriate evidence to present in a debate. "All we all have is faith" - indeed - but the most rational among us (at least) are all too aware of the profound fallibility of faith.

 

[siti]

At the heart of the Abrahamic Faiths we have an Omniscient God who created the Universe...With that in mind we can not prove or disprove the virgin birth. We can the resurrection...

You really don't see the cognitive dissonance here? You don't see how preposterous it is to claim that an omniscient (and omnipotent) creator of the universe could not possibly have raised a human who appeared to have died back to life and yet he did intervene to initiate a human life through conception without insemination? Honestly Adrian - come on - you don't really believe the virgin birth do you? You're just hoping that at some point the UHJ will somehow figure out a way to issue some kind of correction on this - aren't you?

 

[Vinayaka]

Agreed - I was responding to Adrian who had presented a whole stack of statements of faith as evidence that some (but not all) of the Christian scriptures are to be believed. Faith is not evidence of infallibility is what I was really getting at. Statements of faith are not appropriate evidence to present in a debate. "All we all have is faith" - indeed - but the most rational among us (at least) are all too aware of the profound fallibility of faith.

I think this is indicative of yet another major difference in paradigms. The dharmic paradigm, at least in my circles, puts far more emphasis on intuition and faith than on logic, and we're quite happy with that. As my temple priest used to advise people with their problems ... "go pray Ganesha." That in itself is sufficient to keep us all happy. We don't feel the need or the duty to prove anything to anyone based on logic. It's just seeking out contentment for what it is. So we can live with 'Nobody said it has to be logical'. Trying to find logic takes all the joy out of it.

The other paradigm, the one based on scripture and prophets and all that, seems to have this driving instinctive goal of proving everything, despite the obvious inability to prove anything. Maybe the logical atheists got them going, I don't know. That's why we see far more Abrahamics than dharmics on forums like this. Heck Baha'is outnumber Hindus here despite that in real time/life, we outnumber them by about 1000 to 1. That says something.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It suggests that with an infinite propensity for creativity and no limit of time, absolutely every possibility - including the emergence of humans - was inevitable - and therefore nothing special.

That propensity was given by God. There is no need to postulate this as we have Gods Messengers, they are the evidence. Are they not then then the teleology?

Now I can say I have no idea what I just said, as I had to look up all those words and then put it down in a way that I saw each word tied into Gods Revelations

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

I think this is indicative of yet another major difference in paradigms. The dharmic paradigm, at least in my circles, puts far more emphasis on intuition and faith than on logic, and we're quite happy with that. As my temple priest used to advise people with their problems ... "go pray Ganesha." That in itself is sufficient to keep us all happy. We don't feel the need or the duty to prove anything to anyone based on logic. It's just seeking out contentment for what it is. So we can live with 'Nobody said it has to be logical'. Trying to find logic takes all the joy out of it.

The other paradigm, the one based on scripture and prophets and all that, seems to have this driving instinctive goal of proving everything, despite the obvious inability to prove anything. Maybe the logical atheists got them going, I don't know. That's why we see far more Abrahamics than dharmics on forums like this. Heck Baha'is outnumber Hindus here despite that in real time/life, we outnumber them by about 1000 to 1. That says something.

Again I agree - but I think what you are alluding to is the difference between intuition and logic rather than faith and logic. I'm OK with intuition - I feel happy with my intuitions about the nature of reality. But I would not present these as facts to someone else as something they should believe - even less believe in. The problem with the Abrahamics is that they take the intuitions of someone else and accept them as divinely revealed facts - and that propagates erroneous thinking through generations. To me the Baha'i faith is not updating "faith" it is holding yet more generations captive to the errors of "hereditary opinion" about the world. The dharmic "faiths" - to me - seem to have no issue (more than understandable and common socio-cultural inertia) in keeping up to date with scientific and social developments - the Abrahamics seem to stubbornly balk against them at every turn - and yet want to insist on presenting "evidence" that simply doesn't wash.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You could say this a million times and it would still be refuted. All we all have is faith. Back to the OP: I am infallible because I say I am infallible is not evidence at all. It's evidence of gullibility for those who think it's evidence.

That can be tested and has been. But I hesitate to discuss as the magic word may be used.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Again I agree - but I think what you are alluding to is the difference between intuition and logic rather than faith and logic. I'm OK with intuition - I feel happy with my intuitions about the nature of reality. But I would not present these as facts to someone else as something they should believe - even less believe in. The problem with the Abrahamics is that they take the intuitions of someone else and accept them as divinely revealed facts - and that propagates erroneous thinking through generations. To me the Baha'i faith is not updating "faith" it is holding yet more generations captive to the errors of "hereditary opinion" about the world. The dharmic "faiths" - to me - seem to have no issue (more than understandable and common socio-cultural inertia) in keeping up to date with scientific and social developments - the Abrahamics seem to stubbornly balk against them at every turn - and yet want to insist on presenting "evidence" that simply doesn't wash.

"The Messenger is the evidence." Come on, jeepers. That's not evidence at all, any more than saying the refrigerator created the apple you just pulled out of it.

 

[Vinayaka]

That can be tested and has been. But I hesitate to discuss as the magic word may be used.

Regards Tony

It can't be and hasn't been. You have a new Baha'ispeak magic word for me, Anthony? Too bad there isn't a handy lexicon of Bahaispeak.