Infallibility

[Windwalker]

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.

So you're saying that if a prophet teaches the earth is flat, and we are inspired by them to find faith in God which overwhelms the senses, we should now reject science which says the earth is round?

 

[Windwalker]

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.

In other words, even if it's a sugar pill, and you know it is, you should just accept that it's medicine because even though it's technically false that it has other elements besides sugar in it, the belief is what is important because faith is what heals? In other words, the facts aren't relevant, but the symbolic power is? "Infallibility" is really just a symbolic device, and not about actual facts?

I would tend to agree with that more, than saying he didn't make actual technical errors, which he of course did. Hope that makes faith and reason enemies, is really just denialism behind the fear of a lack of meaning.

 

[Jim]

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.

In other words, even if it's a sugar pill, and you know it is, you should just accept that it's medicine because even though it's technically false that it has other elements besides sugar in it, the belief is what is important because faith is what heals? In other words, the facts aren't relevant, but the symbolic power is? "Infallibility" is really just a symbolic device, and not about actual facts?

That isn't what I said, or meant.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

Thank you. I was that way as well. But at the formal thought stage (onset of puberty) in developmental psychology, that's all supposed to change, and questioning becomes part of it. That seems so normal. Anybody who has raised or taught teenagers has seen it everywhere. And yet, some folks seem to be able to skip that stage almost altogether and continue into adulthood with the very same ideas about truth. Perhaps it's genetic. I don't know.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

Spoken like a true Baha'i. I hope you find peace personally in that path.

 

[Vinayaka]

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)

Yes, it allows everyone looking at it to skip over any of the controversial stuff. Conveniently deceptive, but what does one expect? But it's all good, because most people just leave once they encounter the gender equality, overt focus on proselytising, and homophobia. Some are able to hide those things on the backburner and continue on.

 

[`mud]

I see Bahai, or what ever, to be an existence within an existence.
Ending in a wisp of spirit going on to infinity, and beyond.
Like Nirvana captured by an endless promise of foreverness.
I'm sure I'm wrong, but that's what I see.
Who need's a leader to be worshipped, that is life and death.
Isn't it ?

 

[Windwalker]

That isn't what I said, or meant.

So it doesn't matter if even though what is said is technically false, if it benefits you that makes it infallible? Is this what you are saying?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So you're saying that if a prophet teaches the earth is flat, and we are inspired by them to find faith in God which overwhelms the senses, we should now reject science which says the earth is round?

No, religion and science would not contradict each other.
So, if a religion teaches something which contradicts science, that did not originally come from God.
I have not seen any Prophet teaches earth is flat, have you?

 

[Falvlun]

No, religion and science would not contradict each other.
So, if a religion teaches something which contradicts science, that did not originally come from God.
I have not seen any Prophet teaches earth is flat, have you?

Not flat, but this passage in the Bible does show some interesting concepts about the relation of the sun, moon, and earth:

“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.” - Joshua 10:13

So let’s give them a benefit of a doubt and say they aren’t necessarily promoting a geocentric model here but merely talking about how it appears to look. But even so, if the sun appears to stop moving in the sky, that means the earth has stopped spinning. If that happened, everything on earth would have be ripped to shreds as the atmosphere and oceans would continue to move at their previous pace. I’m pretty sure cataclysmic winds and tsunamis would have merited a mention in the good old Book, if that had happened.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Not flat, but this passage in the Bible does show some interesting concepts about the relation of the sun, moon, and earth:

“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.” - Joshua 10:13

So let’s give them a benefit of a doubt and say they aren’t necessarily promoting a geocentric model here but merely talking about how it appears to look. But even so, if the sun appears to stop moving in the sky, that means the earth has stopped spinning. If that happened, everything on earth would have be ripped to shreds as the atmosphere and oceans would continue to move at their previous pace. I’m pretty sure cataclysmic winds and tsunamis would have merited a mention in the good old Book, if that had happened.

Exactly!
So, whenever a literal interpretation is against scientific facts, we know these verses must be interpreted symbolically.
In fact the Bahai writings interprets the Sun being stand still, to mean the divine law and commandment was without any change.
The divine laws and commands are likened to the Sun and the moon, as they symbolically give Light, that is, Light of guidance.

 

[Milton Platt]

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 popes are considered infallible only sometimes when speaking "ex-cathedra" which I guess means they are only considered infallible when they are not being fallible??? LOL

 

[Windwalker]

No, religion and science would not contradict each other.
So, if a religion teaches something which contradicts science, that did not originally come from God.
I have not seen any Prophet teaches earth is flat, have you?

So what do you say if science reveals the truth of something that demonstrates the prophet was wrong? Is science wrong, or the prophet? Or will you say one day they will find out they were wrong and the prophet was right all along, as you had believed?

And yes, the OT prophets imagined a flat earth with a dome sky:



Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia

 

[Falvlun]

Exactly!
So, whenever a literal interpretation is against scientific facts, we know these verses must be interpreted symbolically.
In fact the Bahai writings interprets the Sun being stand still, to mean the divine law and commandment was without any change.
The divine laws and commands are likened to the Sun and the moon, as they symbolically give Light, that is, Light of guidance.

I am not sure the context the Baha’i scriptures mention the sun standing still, but the Bible verse I quoted certainly does not read like symbology. It reads like a historical documentation of the Israelites’ battles with their enemies. It even references that another book documented the occurrence. It literally says that the sun stood still for about a day.

And your symbolism doesn’t really make sense here. The whole point of the passage is pointing out the unique occurrence of the sun standing still for about a day— in contrast to the sun and moon’s normal action, which is movement and change. Since movement and change is the norm for the celestial bodies, they aren’t a particularly great symbol for the changelessness of Divine Law. And God would have had to change physical law to allow the sun to stand still!

As for Light, the Sun and moon provide light, even without standing still for about a day, so I don’t see why we’d need a passage about the sun standing still if it was just supposed to be a passage about the guiding properties of Divine Light.

All of this to say, you can’t just handwave scientific inaccuracies away by claiming that they were meant to be symbolic, particularly when the context does not support such a reading.

 

[`mud]

Ahhh...we've learned so much, yet we now know nothing !

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So what do you say if science reveals the truth of something that demonstrates the prophet was wrong? Is science wrong, or the prophet? Or will you say one day they will find out they were wrong and the prophet was right all along, as you had believed?

And yes, the OT prophets imagined a flat earth with a dome sky:

View attachment 23780

Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia

I had a look at the link. Can you quote which part says, the Prophets imagined a flat earth?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I am not sure the context the Baha’i scriptures mention the sun standing still, but the Bible verse I quoted certainly does not read like symbology. It reads like a historical documentation of the Israelites’ battles with their enemies. It even references that another book documented the occurrence. It literally says that the sun stood still for about a day.

And your symbolism doesn’t really make sense here. The whole point of the passage is pointing out the unique occurrence of the sun standing still for about a day— in contrast to the sun and moon’s normal action, which is movement and change. Since movement and change is the norm for the celestial bodies, they aren’t a particularly great symbol for the changelessness of Divine Law. And God would have had to change physical law to allow the sun to stand still!

As for Light, the Sun and moon provide light, even without standing still for about a day, so I don’t see why we’d need a passage about the sun standing still if it was just supposed to be a passage about the guiding properties of Divine Light.

All of this to say, you can’t just handwave scientific inaccuracies away by claiming that they were meant to be symbolic, particularly when the context does not support such a reading.

It seems you are just insisting on literal reading of the Bible, even you agree it would be scientifically incorrect. A Day of God is counted as a year. So, the Laws of God did not change for one year is the possible interpretation.
The Book is revealed by Prophets, thus only a Prophet of God can tell us its correct interpretation. But we can only say, it has a figurative interpretation, since literal meaning is false.
Remember Jesus blamed those who were after Miracles, and said to them only a corrupted generation would ask for a Miracle. The Book is written in a way that, those who wish to see Miracles, would understand such symbolic verses as Miracle, and are counted among same generation who were after Miracles. But the people of reality would see these verses as symbols and parables, rather than literal Miracles.
You asked about the Bahai writing context for similar expressions 'sun standing still', please google Zoroastrian Prophecies and Abdulbaha interpretation. In Zoroastrians Books, similar expressions are used.

 

[Falvlun]

It seems you are just insisting on literal reading of the Bible, even you agree it would be scientifically incorrect. A Day of God is counted as a year. So, the Laws of God did not change for one year.
Remember Jesus blamed those who were after Miracles, and said to them only a corrupted generation would ask for a Miracle. The Book is written in a way that, those who wish to see Miracles, would understand such symbolic verses as Miracle, and are counted among same generation who were after Miracles. But the people of reality would see these verses as symbols and parables, rather than literal Miracles.
You asked about the Bahai writing context for similar expressions 'sun standing still', please google Zoroastrian Prophecies and Abdulbaha interpretation. In Zoroastrians Books, similar expressions are used.

And you are insisting that it is symbolic despite clear evidence that it’s meant as a literal documentation. Most of the OT is simply a chronicle of the doings and trials of the Israelites. It’s not symbolic at all— it’s meant to be a history of God’s people.

Your miracle explanation is pretty convoluted. God doesn’t want people to rely on miracles but puts things in his Book that seem like miracles just to confuse people who decide to read it literally?

Also, its a little funny that you insist the sun standing still bit must be symbolic but you apparently think the whole “day is as a year” thing is actually literal.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, it allows everyone looking at it to skip over any of the controversial stuff. Conveniently deceptive, but what does one expect? But it's all good, because most people just leave once they encounter the gender equality, overt focus on proselytising, and homophobia. Some are able to hide those things on the backburner and continue on.

People usually become Baha'is because they believe Baha'u'llah to be the Manifestation of God for this day. I have seen a few people come and go over the years for all sorts of reasons. Usually its not for any of those reasons, but I admit there was one guy who wasn't aware of the laws regarding sexuality or about there being just men on the Universal House of Justice, so he resigned. That was nearly 25 years ago. We kept in touch through the years and he passed away recently.

 

[siti]

Yes, it allows everyone looking at it to skip over any of the controversial stuff. Conveniently deceptive, but what does one expect? But it's all good, because most people just leave once they encounter the gender equality, overt focus on proselytising, and homophobia. Some are able to hide those things on the backburner and continue on.

I think that's fairly typical cultish behaviour. I remember being earnestly advised by a very well-meaning JW not to let questions and doubts about details detract too much from the overall appeal of the message (of the Good News).

And that was also the pattern set by the Gospel accounts themselves. When Jesus (reportedly) introduced the idea of "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood" - which - quite understandably - was offensive to many, the "faithful" disciples simply avowed allegiance on account of his uttering "words of eternal life" and their recognition of him as the Christ (John 6:43-69). Their natural abhorrence of the offensive idea of (what was to become) the communion sacrament was pushed into the background and they were encouraged to focus on the "big picture" of Christ's status and the salvific value of their faith in him.

So these ideas (holy communion, the eucharist) are foundational to a number of mainstream Christian churches too - but so deeply ingrained that almost no-one in the mainstream churches would even give a second thought to how monstrously outlandish they are. But they've had centuries to get used to them. Its a different kettle of fish when a religious "new kid on the block" has some decidedly offbeat or outmoded "hard sayings" that people might find difficult to accept - so they typically would not advertise these in their proselytizing campaigns - but they can't just drop them either, as that would be tantamount to admitting the fallibility of their "prophets".