Infallibility

[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.

Given the replies above given to Adrian, I should be safe.

The Infalability of Baha'u'llah was tested many times. When you know each time they tested Baha'u'llah and realised this was so, that it resulted in further banishment and persecution.

Would you like these proofs provided?

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
noun: evidence
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Somebody said ... Sorry, that's not evidence at all.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

I see you do not wish to discuss your topic.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I see you do not wish to discuss your topic.

Regards Tony

Infallibility? It will be a pleasure.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Infallibility? It will be a pleasure.

If I use aspects noted in the Baha'i Faith you will not be offended?

I liked being on this forum.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

The Infalability of Baha'u'llah was tested many times. When you know each time they tested Baha'u'llah and realised this was so, that it resulted in further banishment and persecution.

Seems the people doing the testing didn't believe his egotistical claim then, right? Else why banish and persecute?

 

[Vinayaka]

If I use aspects noted in the Baha'i Faith you will not be offended?

I liked being on this forum.

Regards Tony

Proselytising is proselytising, Tony. Surely you have a grasp on that by now. I never was offended, just like to follow the rules of this forum. Moderators ask all of us to report violations.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Seems the people doing the testing didn't believe his egotistical claim then, right? Else why banish and persecute?

Yes why? Obvously they were not infallible.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes why? Obvously they were not infallible.

Regards Tony

You mean his words? Yes, that's true, they weren't infallible.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Proselytising is proselytising, Tony. Surely you have a grasp on that by now.

You put up a post that is applicable to all Faiths and Faith in Baha'u'llah and then choose to accuse as to the intent of the answer?

There is a grievous falability in that concept.

I argued Im wrong

Peace be with you Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

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?

Cognitive dissonance can be a beautiful thing.

The Baha’i Faith upholds the ‘mystery’ of the virgin birth as does Islam and Christianity.

Lets acknowledge that an Omnipotent God could allow for this Divine Mystery that we can not prove or disprove. Only Mary and Joseph would have known, right?

How about the resurrection? Unlike the virgin birth that is a private matter, the resurrection if considered literally is a very public affair. It was witnessed by 500 people if Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 15:6 is to be taken at face value. The first problem is that Paul never witnessed the resurrection of Christ as He claimed 1 Corinthians 15:8 as He didn’t convert until several years after the crucifixion of Christ. Then he had a blinding experience of Christ on the road to Damascus. It was well after the 40 days of so called resurrection appearances culminating in the ascension as recorded in Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11. The next problem with the ascension is it relies on a cosmological view of the universe that’s obsolete.
So having established the scientific impossibility of the resurrection if taken literally we can best understand Paul’s original intent when using the phrase body of Christ being resurrected as meaning the Christian church.

How is the church the Body of Christ?

 

[Vinayaka]

You put up a post that is applicable to all Faiths and Faith in Baha'u'llah and then choose to accuse as to the intent of the answer?

There is a grievous falability in that concept.

I argued Im wrong

No idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Somebody said ... Sorry, that's not evidence at all.

Agreed and this is the test that can and is used against all Prophets. They may quote a specific tradition or verse that the educated of the time pick up on and initially use it as a point of ridicule and as support to their view that the prophets knowledge is limited.

In the end after much searching and study they find the quote or tradition was accurate.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Agreed and this is the test that can and is used against all Prophets. They may quote a specific tradition or verse that the educated of the time pick up on and initially use it as a point of ridicule and as support to their view that the prophets knowledge is limited.

In the end after much searching and study they find the quote or tradition was accurate.

Regards Tony

I was referring to what the 'prophets' themselves said, Tony, not what was said later about them. Making claims is not proof, regardless of what was said. In this case it was the personal claim of infallibility. That's simply not proof. If I say I am the president of Queensland, that is not proof. Words are not proof. Scripture is not proof. In my faith, I don't have a psychological need for proof, even for myself, let alone inanely trying to prove it to others.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I was referring to what the 'prophets' themselves said, Tony, not what was said later about them. Making claims is not proof, regardless of what was said. In this case it was the personal claim of infallibility. That's simply not proof. If I say I am the president of Queensland, that is not proof. Words are not proof. Scripture is not proof. In my faith, I don't have a psychological need for proof, even for myself, let alone inanely trying to prove it to others.

If what they said is not infalliable, then that in itself must be easily proven.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

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

First of all - can I say - I love you Tony! And I really do mean that - your humility makes me smile (in the most positive sense).

Now - despite your self-effacing disclaimer - what you just said is a very profound encapsulation of what the Baha'i faith seems to me to be suggesting...i.e. that from eternity past, the Almighty knew full well that Baha'u'llah (and each of the other "Manifestations" of course) would appear at exactly the point in history he did appear, and for what purpose? To reveal a message that would already be out of date by the time a couple of generations of his descendants had come and gone and that was so "in tune" with the "modern age" in which it was revealed that it has zero chance attuning itself to the "post-modern age" in which it hopes to establish itself as a "world religion". In that sense, I suppose Baha'u'llah - and the other "Manifestations" are indeed, from a Baha'i perspective, the teleology - the goal towards which creation presses in each successive dispensation - the "alpha and omega" of the evolutionary (but to some extent programmed) process, so to speak.

That's how I understand the concept at any rate. But I can't possibly believe it because it makes no logical sense to suggest that God knew that mankind would repeatedly fail, not only to accept the revelation of each Manifestation, but fail even to preserve it intact for more than a few decades before it became corrupted. I see no reason why an omniscient and omnipotent creator couldn't have been more successful in ensuring that "his" message got through intact to everyone that needed it. I see no reason to believe that any of the "revelations" are more than the works of flawed and fallible human ingenuity. And that is a far more satisfactory explanation for the "errors" in religious traditions and in their transmission form generation to generation. If it really were God's work - "he" would surely have done a better job - and especially so if such revelations were part of his omniscient eternal plan.

 

[siti]

The Baha’i Faith upholds the ‘mystery’ of the virgin birth as does Islam and Christianity...Only Mary and Joseph would have known, right?

Wrong - only Mary. Joseph clearly knew he was not the father - according to the story - but he certainly didn't know that somebody else wasn't - in fact he suspected that someone else was until an angel appeared and told him otherwise. Her virginity might possibly have been tested (though not infallibly it must be said - in view of the topic) - but that would have widened the circle of people who knew about it - one way or the other. As it was, it seems that Joseph was content to "pretend" that the child was his and that, of course, would have quite conveniently (for the virgin birth account) put an end to any speculation among her relatives and associates. And both the earliest record (Mark's Gospel) and the favourite of Baha'is (John's Gospel) make no mention of the virgin birth. Neither does the Apostle Paul in any of the writings attributed to him. Its a bit odd, don't you think, that the earliest witness (the author of Mark) and the two key theologians of 1st century Christianity - the Apostle Paul and the author of the Gospel of John - all omitted such an extraordinary detail if it had been true? John certainly refers to Jesus as "the son of Joseph" and he, of all people, would surely have not omitted the birth of Jesus from his account if he had believed there was anything noteworthy to report.

How about the resurrection?

How about it? Since the very earliest suggestion of a resurrection people have had the idea that perhaps Jesus wasn't really dead in the first place, that he recovered and went on to live a more anonymous life and have a family,...etc. etc. There are frequent cases of people who have been thought dead - even by very experienced medical practitioners - even with modern technology - and have come back to life again. Jesus was reportedly seen by many people - some reports possibly originating even before Paul started writing about 500 witnesses. There is certainly more evidence for the so-called "resurrection" than there is for the virgin birth. And it is entirely possible IMO that someone presumed dead upon crucifixion was in fact found to be alive again after being entombed. I can easily imagine how such an incident might have gathered mythological accretions in rapid succession and been absorbed as part of the mystery of Christ. Far more likely than anyone having been conceived without insemination.

The next problem with the ascension is it relies on a cosmological view of the universe that’s obsolete.

Of course it does - but there is a perfectly sensible theological explanation given that you accept that an omnipotent God could allow for a divine mystery - God simply allowed the Christians a vision of the ascension that accorded with their current understanding. There - problem gone.

So we can play these games back and forth and imagine what an omnipotent God may or may not have done - but what it boils down to in the end is what one chooses to believe. For me, I prefer evidence and reason - but if you want to cherry pick other people's mythologies and in so doing "strain out a [perfectly plausible] gnat and swallow a [patently absurd] camel" then so be it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

First of all - can I say - I love you Tony! And I really do mean that - your humility makes me smile (in the most positive sense).

Now - despite your self-effacing disclaimer - what you just said is a very profound encapsulation of what the Baha'i faith seems to me to be suggesting...i.e. that from eternity past, the Almighty knew full well that Baha'u'llah (and each of the other "Manifestations" of course) would appear at exactly the point in history he did appear, and for what purpose? To reveal a message that would already be out of date by the time a couple of generations of his descendants had come and gone and that was so "in tune" with the "modern age" in which it was revealed that it has zero chance attuning itself to the "post-modern age" in which it hopes to establish itself as a "world religion". In that sense, I suppose Baha'u'llah - and the other "Manifestations" are indeed, from a Baha'i perspective, the teleology - the goal towards which creation presses in each successive dispensation - the "alpha and omega" of the evolutionary (but to some extent programmed) process, so to speak.

That's how I understand the concept at any rate. But I can't possibly believe it because it makes no logical sense to suggest that God knew that mankind would repeatedly fail, not only to accept the revelation of each Manifestation, but fail even to preserve it intact for more than a few decades before it became corrupted. I see no reason why an omniscient and omnipotent creator couldn't have been more successful in ensuring that "his" message got through intact to everyone that needed it. I see no reason to believe that any of the "revelations" are more than the works of flawed and fallible human ingenuity. And that is a far more satisfactory explanation for the "errors" in religious traditions and in their transmission form generation to generation. If it really were God's work - "he" would surely have done a better job - and especially so if such revelations were part of his omniscient eternal plan.

You are too kind and also have an amazing mind that grasps these concepts with ease.

My life has shown me that any elevated thought that may have come from me, has a source that is not part of my animal self. It is not of me. I am only intune with that thought when I let self go. That is a rare occurance at the best.

As for believing if failure is worthy part of creation from an Infallible God.

I would ask if we only have Success, what is failure? I see this question unfold in the Biblical Passage;

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

Without choice we are not Human with all potential, we are an animal in this fleeting world.

We could say that creation is a perfect creation for a Human to find and make spiritual choices. We are told this is the Matrix of the Spiritual worlds to come.

It is our mind based in self that binds us to this creation.

I do think you most likely already understand this as well. To me it ties back to who we see the Messengers as. Do we have their knowledge, or do we not?

I am sure you are aware of the stories of those that approached Baha'u'llah thinking they would set Him on the right path.

Peace be with you always.

Regards Tony

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

Why does it matter if Moses did not write it?
There are other inspired teachers too, who are inspired and are infallible. In Bahai faith, Abdulbaha is an example. He was not a Manifestation but, He was infallible.

 

[siti]

I would ask if we only has Success, what is failure?

Perhaps - but do I really need to experience cancer before I can appreciate good health? I think not.

It is our mind based in self that binds us to this creation.

I see it the opposite way round - it is our focus on self that separates us from creation - and that finds (perhaps) its ultimate expression in traditional monotheisms where the "holy" is entirely screened off from the "profane" behind an impenetrable curtain. Yet the "temple" (the true temple) is (unavoidably) a physical structure - and whether or not we find the divine within depends on the extent to which our "mind" (our "spirit") can be separated, not from "this creation", but from the conceptual (imaginary) boundaries that define our "self" and set us over and against our "not-self". And to be honest - I think if we truly can find the "divine" within this "earthly temple", then infallibility and fallibility (of spiritual guides and prophets, of "divine revelations" and retellings thereof) become irrelevant - because once we've "been there" we no longer need either guide or prophet to lead us - but that's not to say we can't still learn from others - its all "grist to the mill" of a continually unfolding "becoming" and seen from countless different angles and through different filters. Some that please, others that grate on the senses of our spirit.