Infallibility

[Vinayaka]

God is infallible, but as you know it is a Baha'i belief that a Manifestation of God is also infallible. The unity of God means that God and His Manifestation are one and the same, so both are infallible. That belief is based upon the following passage. The invisible, inaccessible, unknowable Essence is God.

“The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 167​

As with Unveiled artist, I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't keep quoting your guy. It holds no meaning to me whatsover, and I never read it. It's just too much proselytising for me. Thanks.

 

[Vinayaka]

Nah. Only cats are infallible.

Self-declared as well.

 

[`mud]

Only in one's imagination, is there anything infallible !
All that escapes with one's cognizance upon one's death !
Nothing in this world, and into the Cosmos is infallible !

 

[`mud]

There might be another possibility,
the infinite persistence of one's spirit,
but some here will challenge that.

 

[Windwalker]

Have you looked at the Sun in the clear sky at noon? Can you say, recognizing the Sun in the clear sky requires infallible judgement? To me, the divinity of Bahaullah is as clear as the Sun.

You said you read the writings and saw no errors. The only way you could know there were no errors, which are matters of technical accuracy, is to know the technical facts yourself. I can tell you, there are technical errors in his writings. They have errors. Inspiring faith, has little to do with technical accuracy.

Do you believe humans are not animals, that humans were not the product of evolution from earlier animal species? If so, that is a technical error. Yet, Baha'u'llah taught this, didn't he? And saying that one day science will agree with the prophet, is utterly un-satisfying to the rational mind, or faith. If you felt it was infallibly true because it inspired you like the warmth of the sun on your skin, that is an error of both the facts and faith. Both what you read and what you subsequently believed contain errors of fallibility.

If you get rid of the unnecessary notion of infallibility, the problem goes away. He can have been wrong about evolution, and still speak other truths that have meaning to you. Otherwise, you're tying a cement block around the feet of faith and tossing it into the river of facts to either swim or drown in its waters. That's unfortunate.

 

[Jedster]

You have experience with the mind-set at least. Makes for a better understanding of where people are coming from on this. I've never met anyone claiming to be infallible, and as Ymir advised, I would have run ... fast. A long time ago we encountered a few folks who were all agog over the Guru you referred to. I must say there was a certain oddness in any discussion, So too with certain members of the Sai groups. Not all, just some. When the name is tossed out as the equivalent of God ... well, my suspicious warning bells go off.

Bear in mind, at the time, it was the 1970s. I had no knowledge outside Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All of which I considered failures.
A direct experience seemed a new thing on offer and could change the world.

I had a strong experience in the initiation, which convinced me that 'this knowledge is Truth/God".
When I left , some 20+ years later, I discovered that the 'knowledge' was a set of yogic/meditation techs that many people practised, both Theist and non-Theist.

 

[Vinayaka]

Bear in mind, at the time, it was the 1970s. I had no knowledge outside Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All of which I considered failures.
A direct experience seemed a new thing on offer and could change the world.

I had a strong experience in the initiation, which convinced me that 'this knowledge is Truth/God".
When I left , some 20+ years later, I discovered that the 'knowledge' was a set of yogic/meditation techs that many people practised, both Theist and non-Theist.

Yes, that's quite common ... marketing breathing techniques as something new. Pranayama has been around a very long time. Gurus who come to the west often are 'successful' precisely because the Abrahamics know very little about yogic ways so it all sounds new and exciting. Reminds me how Rolling Stone gave George Harrison the award for alternative instrument music ... the sitar. India probably had 10 000 sitar players better than him, lol.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You said you read the writings and saw no errors. The only way you could know there were no errors, which are matters of technical accuracy, is to know the technical facts yourself. I can tell you, there are technical errors in his writings. They have errors. Inspiring faith, has little to do with technical accuracy.

Do you believe humans are not animals, that humans were not the product of evolution from earlier animal species? If so, that is a technical error. Yet, Baha'u'llah taught this, didn't he? And saying that one day science will agree with the prophet, is utterly un-satisfying to the rational mind, or faith. If you felt it was infallibly true because it inspired you like the warmth of the sun on your skin, that is an error of both the facts and faith. Both what you read and what you subsequently believed contain errors of fallibility.

If you get rid of the unnecessary notion of infallibility, the problem goes away. He can have been wrong about evolution, and still speak other truths that have meaning to you. Otherwise, you're tying a cement block around the feet of faith and tossing it into the river of facts to either swim or drown in its waters. That's unfortunate.

Recognizing the truth of a Manifestation of God is like recognizing the Sun. Once we look and see the clear evidences, the doubt will go away.
How many times, we may think we found an error in the writings or doings of the Manifestation of God, but once we investigated the matter more carefully, we realized it was only due to our own faulty understanding and judgement.
Therefor once we recognized the Sun, we know from that point on, any error we ever happen to see, is due to our own faulty judgement.
Can you say, if you saw the Sun covered by the clouds, it is no longer the Sun? Our faulty judgement and biases are those clouds which cover the Sun of Truth for us, and prevent us from recognizing the Sun. Therefore we must strive to remove the clouds.
Now the magic about the writings and teachings of the Manifestation of God is, while we are investigating His case, His teachings help us remove those clouds. Therefore all it takes, is, to make an effort.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't know much if any about the UHJ so this comes out of ignorance. What is the relationship between The UHJ the messengers if the former is fallible and the latter not?

I don't see it as a bad thing if it is or not; to each his own. If the former is not, by what reasons do you follow the UHJ?

If it is, what is the relationship between the UHJ and god to make that so?

The Universal House of Justice is the elected international governing body of the Baha’i Faith. It’s establishment, sphere of authority, and essential functions are all outlined by the pen of Bahá’u’lláh Himself. It can have acquired infallibility under certain conditions and this is clear from a study of Bahá’u’lláh’s writings or His designated successors Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi. Considering the Institution of the Papacy in Catholicism is a useful analogy as Catholics consider its authority is based on Christ’s appointment of Peter as His successor.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Don't you think avoidance of the touchier issues is a form of deception though?. I've read statements like ...."If I'd have known about that when I joined up, I would have never joined up?" I'm personally for full disclosure on such matters. What do you think?

I believe it’s vitally important anyone considering becoming a Baha’i has at least a basic understanding of the central figures as well as the role of the guardian and Universal House of Justice ‘before’ they join. It’s one of the roles of local assemblies to ensure these requirements are met. We’ve certainly had people in the past join too soon and still do.

Those who declare themselves as Bahá'ís should become enchanted with the beauty of the Teachings, and touched by the love of Bahá'u'lláh. The declarants need not know all the proofs, history, laws, and principles of the Faith, but in the process of declaring themselves they must, in addition to catching the spark of faith, become basically informed about the Central Figures of the Faith, as well as the existence of laws they must follow and an administration they must obey.

(13 July 1964, written by the Universal House of Justice to all National Spiritual Assemblies)

 

[Trailblazer]

As with Unveiled artist, I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't keep quoting your guy. It holds no meaning to me whatsover, and I never read it. It's just too much proselytising for me. Thanks.

I felt that the quote was necessary to "support" what I was saying about the infallibility of Manifestations of God, but I will make a mental note to remember not to post quotes to you directly.

 

[InChrist]

Christian fundamentalists have it that the bible
is infallible, and that god guides their intrrpretation-
effectively making them infalluble.

That is not exactly accurate. Christian fundamentalists (meaning those who accept the fundamental doctrines of the Bible) believe the Word of God is infallible. No Christian who believes this would consider any human being or any human interpretation infallible because all humans fall short of God's perfection.

 

[Audie]

That is not exactly accurate. Christian fundamentalists (meaning those who accept the fundamental doctrines of the Bible) believe the Word of God is infallible. No Christian who believes this would consider any human being or any human interpretation infallible because all humans fall short of God's perfection.

Plenty do. If god tells you thete really was a flood, say, it is impossible
to be wrong. God would not with all his glory give you a wrong reading.

Do you believd in noahs ark? Observe, then how nothing whatever will budge
you one millimeter from 100% credulity. Nothing.

What is that, if not infallible?

 

[Falvlun]

So when did this idea that a scripture or a prophet or a messenger or a pope is absolutely perfect in every way come into practice? Has it been there since early times, or is it more recent? What purpose does it serve?

What or who do you consider infallible, if anything?

As an eastern thinker and logical person, I don't get infallibility. To be clear, I understand what it means, I just don't get how anyone else could believe in it, yet I know some do. I just shake my head and go 'really?'

Here's an example. "I'm infallible. I said I was infallible, and since I'm infallible, it is only logical to conclude I'm infallible. I mean, how could an infallible person claiming to be infallible possibly be wrong?"

Does this sound logical to you?

I think infallibility is simply there to discourage questioning things that don’t make sense.

That’s why it’s so popular in the more authoritative religions. Questioning can be detrimental to faith, and faith is crucial to these religions.

Eastern religions tend to be a bit more of a personal-journey sort of thing, which I think allows then to look more kindly upon questions, hence less of a reliance upon infallibility.

 

[CG Didymus]

It’s easy to take one or two principles of any religion, remove the context, and create a distorted picture. That’s what Christian and Islamic apologists do when they want to denigrate the faith of another.

The Baha’i Faith teaches that the overriding principle is all truth is relative, not infallibility.

The fundamental principle enunciated by Baha’u’llah, the followers of His Faith firmly believe, is that Religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the non-essential aspects of their doctrines and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society. – Shoghi Effendi, Summary Statement – 1947, Special UN Committee on Palestine.

No Faith is Final - Religious Claims to Absolute Truth

All truth is relative? Then why follow anything any religion says is the truth?

 

[Katzpur]

Young children have it, to some degree, about their parents. "My mommy said ...." can be a very strong motivator to a kid.

It's a big deal in Mormonism to say, "I know this Church is true!" Little kids are encouraged to say it before they could conceivably know such a thing. Once a month, instead of our regular worship service, we have what is called "Fast and Testimony Meeting." (We fast on this Sunday for two meals and give the cost of those meals to the Church to feed the needy within our congregation.) At any rate, in Fast and Testimony Meeting, there is basically an "open mic" and members of the Church of all ages take turns speaking for a few minutes to the congregation if they have something they would like to share. Ideally, these "testimonies" are intended to strengthen the other members of the congregation. They involve relating faith-promoting experiences, etc. When I was a young child, I had a very good friend who came from a staunch Catholic family. Believe it or not, at the relatively tender age of 10 or 11, she and I used to spend quite a bit of time discussing our relative religious beliefs. Whenever I would go to Fast and Testimony Meeting, I would watch as kids my age (sometimes as young as 6 or 8) would stand up and say (in a quiet, kind of nervous voice), "I want to bury (sic) my testimony. I am thankful for my mom and dad and I know this Church is true. InthenameofJesusChristAmen." Every time that happened, I wondered, "How do they know? I mean really know? They don't know anything at all about any other church so they have no means by which to draw a comparison. It must just be that their parents told them that this Church is true. But I bet anything that Patty's parents have told her the Catholic Church is true. Does that mean she really knows it is? Probably not." As kids, we trust our parents to be honest with us, and when they teach us something of a spiritual nature, we don't yet understand that spiritual knowledge is something you have to get on your own and not through someone else.

 

[CG Didymus]

Recognizing the truth of a Manifestation of God is like recognizing the Sun. Once we look and see the clear evidences, the doubt will go away.
How many times, we may think we found an error in the writings or doings of the Manifestation of God, but once we investigated the matter more carefully, we realized it was only due to our own faulty understanding and judgement.
Therefor once we recognized the Sun, we know from that point on, any error we ever happen to see, is due to our own faulty judgement.
Can you say, if you saw the Sun covered by the clouds, it is no longer the Sun? Our faulty judgement and biases are those clouds which cover the Sun of Truth for us, and prevent us from recognizing the Sun. Therefore we must strive to remove the clouds.
Now the magic about the writings and teachings of the Manifestation of God is, while we are investigating His case, His teachings help us remove those clouds. Therefore all it takes, is, to make an effort.

Again I bring up people in the Bible that Baha'is say are "manifestations" but weren't perfect. Again I bring up Christianity. By what Baha'is say is the truth, when did Christianity ever have the truth and teach the truth? What clouds did they dispel?

 

[CG Didymus]

I think infallibility is simply there to discourage questioning things that don’t make sense.

That’s why it’s so popular in the more authoritative religions. Questioning can be detrimental to faith, and faith is crucial to these religions.

Eastern religions tend to be a bit more of a personal-journey sort of thing, which I think allows then to look more kindly upon questions, hence less of a reliance upon infallibility.

Exactly. But some do more than try to discourage, they try to stifle all questioning with attitudes like "The Bible says it. I believe it. And that settles it." And then all the different denominations argue about what the Bible teaches.

 

[Dawnofhope]

All truth is relative? Then why follow anything any religion says is the truth?

A better question would be, if all truth is relative, then what is it relative too? We may be talking about laws that were appropriate for a bygone era that no longer apply now. When Baha'u'llah says the first duty prescribed for His servants is to recognise the Manifestation of God for this day, then the question becomes what does that mean relative to me. Its important to follow the path of moderation and develop a little wisdom whatever our spiritual path may be, don't you think?

 

[Jim]

As an eastern thinker and logical person, I don't get infallibility. To be clear, I understand what it means, I just don't get how anyone else could believe in it, yet I know some do. I just shake my head and go 'really?'

For a long time I thought that Baha'u'llah was claiming to be infallible, and I rejected that idea. Then as time went by, in my disagreements with Him, one by one I kept learning that He was right after all. Also, He never seemed to me like a delusional or dishonest person, so it was always a paradox for me to think that He was either wrong or lying about being infallible. The final straw was one time when I was reading His writings, and in a flash of insight I saw for myself the truth of what He says about the oneness of the prophets. Somehow that removed my last doubts about His infallibility. What that means in practice for me is that when I disagree with Him, it's never a question whether He's right or not. I re-examine my views, and my understanding of what He's saying, trying to resolve the conflict I see between them, but I don't discard either one.

I don't think of "infallibility" any more as "invariably true." I think of it as un-failable, meaning that it can't fail in its purpose, like an infallible remedy. So for me the infallibility of the House of Justice is that by following it we can be sure that we are helping to achieve Baha'u'llah's purposes.