Infallibility

[loverofhumanity]

Argue about what? You can't post a quote that denounces liberalism saying you believe what it says and then say you're all about 'unity in diversity' - its an absolute contradiction - can you not see that?

You see a contradiction I don’t. Because the term used was with regards to the Baha’i Community not the wider community.

We have different laws and rules that govern our communities than the wider community does.

We are a religion and have the right to have our own beliefs. The House of Justice is pointing out that all are Baha’is and there are no such divisions within our Faith. I don’t see anything wrong with that at all as it’s within our own religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Infallibility of the Manifestations is a basic Baha’i belief. One can’t join the Faith unless they freely accept this concept.

I did not know this. Back when I became a Baha'i in 1970, nobody asked me any questions. I just had to declare that I believed that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God, but back then I did not even understand what that meant. I guess times have changed.

 

[Trailblazer]

Argue about what? You can't post a quote that denounces liberalism saying you believe what it says and then say you're all about 'unity in diversity' - its an absolute contradiction - can you not see that?

Read that quote from the UHJ again...

In this regard, the House of Justice has noted your understandable repugnance at an apparent temptation to use misleading and invidious labels like "traditionalists" and "liberals", which divide the Bahá'í community. To the extent that this divisive habit of mind may persist in the Bahá'í community, it is obviously a carry-over from non-Bahá'í society and a manifestation of an immature conception of life. If Bahá'ís were to persist in this mode of thinking, it would bring to naught even the most worthwhile intellectual endeavour, as has so conspicuously been the case with societies of the past.
(Dec 10, 1992 to an individual)​

That quote did not denounce liberalism in any way. It denounced using misleading and invidious labels like "traditionalists" and "liberals" becasue such labels divide the Bahá'í community.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I could not find what paarsurrey wanted in the Iqan by doing a search for infallible or infallibility.
What paarsurrey wants is Baha'u'llah declaring that He is infallible... Nothing less than that will do.

Well, we could most likely easily post 100 quotes from His writings after he declared in 1863.

From the Kitab-i-iqan that was in answer to an uncle of the Bab about the Station of the Bab, it will not be found. The book proves all God's Mesengers up to the Bab and paves the way for the acceptance of Baha'u'llah, His Message yet to be openly proclaimed.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I could not find what paarsurrey wanted in the Iqan by doing a search for infallible or infallibility.
What paarsurrey wants is Baha'u'llah declaring that He is infallible... Nothing less than that will do.

Bahau'llah did say in the Kitab-i-iqan;

" Having thus conclusively demonstrated that no day is greater than this Day, and no revelation more glorious than this Revelation, and having set forth all these weighty and infallible proofs which no understanding mind can question, and no man of learning overlook, how can man possibly, through the idle contention of the people of doubt and fancy, deprive himself of such a bountiful grace?...."

And

"..They that valiantly labour in quest of God’s will, when once they have renounced all else but Him, will be so attached and wedded to that City that a moment’s separation from it would to them be unthinkable. They will hearken unto infallible proofs from the Hyacinth of that assembly, and receive the surest testimonies from the beauty of its Rose and the melody of its Nightingale. Once in about a thousand years shall this City be renewed and re-adorned..."

It is clear Baha'u'llah is saying all Messengers are Infallible.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Bahau'llah did say in the Kitab-i-iqan;
It is clear Baha'u'llah is saying all Messengers are Infallible.

Yes, it is clear to us Baha'is.
But I am afraid it won't be clear to our dear friend paarsurrey.
That's why when I found those passages in my search I decided not to bother.

 

[siti]

Read that quote from the UHJ again...

In this regard, the House of Justice has noted your understandable repugnance at an apparent temptation to use misleading and invidious labels like "traditionalists" and "liberals", which divide the Bahá'í community. To the extent that this divisive habit of mind may persist in the Bahá'í community, it is obviously a carry-over from non-Bahá'í society and a manifestation of an immature conception of life. If Bahá'ís were to persist in this mode of thinking, it would bring to naught even the most worthwhile intellectual endeavour, as has so conspicuously been the case with societies of the past.
(Dec 10, 1992 to an individual)
That quote did not denounce liberalism in any way. It denounced using misleading and invidious labels like "traditionalists" and "liberals" becasue such labels divide the Bahá'í community.

Read that quote from the UHJ again...OK...done that...so its not denouncing liberalism in any way...its just saying if you do happen to be a liberal Baha'i you mustn't say that you are liberal Baha'i...? And if "such labels" divide, why do we have to have a "Baha'i religion" why can't we just say "I am a religionist" or "I believe in religion"?

 

[Trailblazer]

Read that quote from the UHJ again...OK...done that...so its not denouncing liberalism in any way...its just saying if you do happen to be a liberal Baha'i you mustn't say that you are liberal Baha'i...

I do not see that in the quote. I just as easily see it as saying that if you are a traditionalist Baha'i, you mustn't say you are a traditionalist Baha'i. In short, neither the liberal or the traditionalist should say they are because the labels are divisive.

? And if "such labels" divide, why do we have to have a "Baha'i religion" why can't we just say "I am a religionist" or "I believe in religion"?

If we do not use the labels they will not divide us. That was the point the UHJ was making.

 

[siti]

If we do not use the labels they will not divide us. That was the point the UHJ was making.

So why do you label yourself "Baha'i"? I don't label myself anything - I just think what I think and believe what I believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

So why do you label yourself "Baha'i"? I don't label myself anything - I just think what I think and believe what I believe.

I am a Baha'i because I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God.
A Baha'i is a follower of Baha'u'llah.

 

[siti]

I am a Baha'i because I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God.
A Baha'i is a follower of Baha'u'llah.

So if a say I'm a liberal, is that not the same - i.e. I believe that we should follow liberal ideals, a person who follows liberal ideals is a liberal - right? And if a person believes in Baha'u'llah AND in liberal ideals wouldn't they be a liberal Baha'i? You can't have your cake and ha'penny - if labels based on what one believes are divisive, why use labels at all...and if you are happy to use labels for one whay of thinking, why not for another?

 

[Trailblazer]

So if a say I'm a liberal, is that not the same - i.e. I believe that we should follow liberal ideals, a person who follows liberal ideals is a liberal - right? And if a person believes in Baha'u'llah AND in liberal ideals wouldn't they be a liberal Baha'i?

They would be a Baha'i who has liberal ideas, which is rather meaningless, because it could mean anything.

You can't have your cake and ha'penny - if labels based on what one believes are divisive, why use labels at all...and if you are happy to use labels for one way of thinking, why not for another?

Sometimes we have to use labels to identify what we believe. They do not have to be divisive. Others might feel divided because they believe something different but it does not have to be that way, and it is not how God intended it to be.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.....” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

 

[paarsurrey]

So why do you label yourself "Baha'i"? I don't label myself anything - I just think what I think and believe what I believe.

After-all, Bahaullah himself did not claim in Iqan that he was a Bahai, even then some persons used it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

After-all, Bahaullah himself did not claim in Iqan that he was a Bahai, even then some persons used it. Right, please?

Regards

A Baha'i is a follower of Baha'u'llah.
Baha'u'llah did not follow Himself, so He was not a Baha'i.

 

[siti]

They would be a Baha'i who has liberal ideas, which is rather meaningless, because it could mean anything.

No - it would, in terms of the Baha'i religion, suggest that someone was a "follower of Baha'u'llah" but was more open to liberal interpretations of what that means - perhaps (probably) in terms of the religion's view of homosexuality and the involvement of women at the highest levels of the faith's organizational structure...and probably someone who felt that some of the general understandings of what is written in Baha'i scripture might be interpreted in less literalistic fashion - e.g. the copper and gold thing - a traditionalist would say "what is written is written" but a more liberal-minded interpretation might seek a more figurative interpretation. I think that's about it - anyone who was more liberal-minded than questioning those elements of the faith probably wouldn't want to be called "Baha'i" anyway. So I don;t think it would be meaningless - it would be important for the leaders and members of the faith to understand I would think - that there are a significant number of people who desire to be "followers of Baha'u'llah" but want to be "liberal" in those areas too. By saying "you can't" when they want to use that label, you are forcing them to choose between their conscientious convictions - or simply keep quiet about their doubts - I don't think either of those choices are healthy spiritually or emotionally. Its OK by me for a religion to be exclusive - but not when it is pretending otherwise.

Sometimes we have to use labels to identify what we believe. They do not have to be divisive. Others might feel divided because they believe something different but it does not have to be that way, and it is not how God intended it to be.

Are labels for ourselves or others? I feel no need to label my beliefs for my own purposes - I just believe what I believe. But I am obliged sometimes - to facilitate meaningful conversation - to label them for the sake of others.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So I don;t think it would be meaningless - it would be important for the leaders and members of the faith to understand I would think - that there are a significant number of people who desire to be "followers of Baha'u'llah" but want to be "liberal" in those areas too. By saying "you can't" when they want to use that label, you are forcing them to choose between their conscientious convictions - or simply keep quiet about their doubts - I don't think either of those choices are healthy spiritually or emotionally. Its OK by me for a religion to be exclusive - but not when it is pretending otherwise.

There are two thoughts here, the first is where we see all truth comes from, as a Baha'i it can be seen in this passage,

"...Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink....."

Then to me this is very important about acceptance;

"..How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”

This is the passage they were taken from;
Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 175-177

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead

So if you don't agree unquestioningly with the interpretations of the UHJ you are not really a Baha'i - you're "dead"...nice! Spiritual totalitarianism...as Pete Townshend might have put it "meet the new God, same as the old God" - and then we all join in the chorus "..and we get on our knees and pray, we won't get fooled again"!

 

[Trailblazer]

No - it would, in terms of the Baha'i religion, suggest that someone was a "follower of Baha'u'llah" but was more open to liberal interpretations of what that means - perhaps (probably) in terms of the religion's view of homosexuality and the involvement of women at the highest levels of the faith's organizational structure...

These two things are not up for grabs because the Baha'i Law is clear on homosexuality and it is also clear that only men can serve on the UHJ. So to question these is to disagree with what Baha'u'llah wrote and doing that starts to divide the Faith up into Baha'is who believe that we do not question Baha'u'llah vs. Baha'is who think it is okay to question Baha'u'llah.

and probably someone who felt that some of the general understandings of what is written in Baha'i scripture might be interpreted in less literalistic fashion - e.g. the copper and gold thing - a traditionalist would say "what is written is written" but a more liberal-minded interpretation might seek a more figurative interpretation.

I do not think there is anything wrong with having our own interpretations when the Writings could mean more than one thing. Baha'is are not always going to agree on what they mean.

I think that's about it - anyone who was more liberal-minded than questioning those elements of the faith probably wouldn't want to be called "Baha'i" anyway. So I don;t think it would be meaningless - it would be important for the leaders and members of the faith to understand I would think - that there are a significant number of people who desire to be "followers of Baha'u'llah" but want to be "liberal" in those areas too. By saying "you can't" when they want to use that label, you are forcing them to choose between their conscientious convictions - or simply keep quiet about their doubts - I don't think either of those choices are healthy spiritually or emotionally. Its OK by me for a religion to be exclusive - but not when it is pretending otherwise.

I think that people have to choose between what they want and what the religion teaches. Certain teachings and Laws are very clear and if we disagree with them then we are saying we know more than Baha'u'llah. I do not necessarily like the Law on homosexuality but I accept that there is wisdom in it beyond what I am able to understand and that eventually that Law will be understood more fully. If someone really disagrees with the teachings and Laws of Baha'u'llah and cannot reconcile that disagreement then it is probably best not to become a Baha'i. That is just my opinion, other Bahai's might disagree.

Are labels for ourselves or others? I feel no need to label my beliefs for my own purposes - I just believe what I believe. But I am obliged sometimes - to facilitate meaningful conversation - to label them for the sake of others.

A label identifying what religion one belongs to serves to make a general statement about what we believe and behaviors that are associated with that belief. You have no religion, so I see no reason why you would wear a label.

 

[siti]

You have no religion, so I see no reason why you would wear a label.

I see no reason to wear a label - that's why I have no religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see no reason to wear a label - that's why I have no religion.

Lucky you....