Is progressive revelation believable?

[Trailblazer]

We can't chose the way we think.

But we can change the way we think if we listen to other people and try to understand things in another way.
Of course, that would require our admitting we were wrong about something we thought we were right about.

 

[Vinayaka]

Of the Abrahamic Faiths, the Baha’i Faith certainly does that in making Krishna and Buddha equal to Jesus and acknowledging the Divine origins of Hinduism and Buddhism.

I see you resorted back to the idea Krishna was some person, and not God. Oh well. (sigh).

 

[Vinayaka]

But we can change the way we think if we listen to other people and try to understand things in another way.
Of course, that would require our admitting we were wrong about something we thought we were right about.

Can we?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Another 'bump' for the Seven Valleys.

It is a gorgeously written text, in the style of the great Sufi Persian epics like Attar's Conference of the Birds and Rumi's Masnavi.

I read it many years ago and found it aesthetically beautiful, as well as rich in imagery and mysticism.

Baha'u'llah knew his Persian literature and could write with erudition, that's for sure.

But agreed on the theocracy / divine law / government side of the equation. That's also my biggest issue with Baha'i theology.

Unsurprisingly, coming at the Baha'i scriptures from a Christian perspective, I found the Valleys, Iqan and Hidden Words very pleasing but the "divine law" book, the Aqdas less so (its a much more Islamic Hadith / Jewish Deuteronomy style-text, in its law-giving nature. I'd be curious to know Islamic thoughts on it, as I imagine they might be fairly positive as to its style and tone in light of the importance of the shariah to Islam).

I have considered this stance over the years I have been a Baha'i and I see it really has quite a simple explanation.

You mentioned the Hidden Words and that introduction really puts it in a nutshell;

He Is the Glory of Glories

"This is that which hath descended from the realm of glory, uttered by the tongue of power and might, and revealed unto the Prophets of old. We have taken the inner essence thereof and clothed it in the garment of brevity, as a token of grace unto the righteous, that they may stand faithful unto the Covenant of God, may fulfill in their lives His trust, and in the realm of spirit obtain the gem of divine virtue."

The Message of Baha'u'llah has taken of old and given it a balance. I look at it this way. We have Judaism and Islam that are strongly law based and then we have Christianity that have embraced a more personal liberal view of Law as have many Eastern based Religions.

What greater bounty than God giving us a middle path, one which some will find easy to embrace, some who have lots of law will see it far too relaxed and those that have none or very few, far to strict.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

There are of course more universal branches of Hinduism that embrace the Abrahamic Faiths to varying degrees.

There is a huge difference between tolerance and combining beliefs to the extent that the adherents get really confused. If you ask some of the universalist Hindus about what they believe on some hard core stuff, they won't be able to answer you, as they actually don't have a set belief on it. Personally, as you know, I'd rather know what I think, and leave others alone to believe how they wish, which is the true meaning of tolerance ... to tolerate. Unfortunately some folks confuse tolerance with acceptance.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I see you resorted back to the idea Krishna was some person, and not God. Oh well. (sigh).

Hey, I just compared Him to Jesus who Christians view as God incarnate. I’m using capitals for ‘Him’. So Krishna is God ‘and’ an historic person. You’re reverting back to forgetting how paradoxical the Baha’is truly are!

 

[Trailblazer]

Can we?

I know I can. If I cannot change how I think about things what is the point of even having discussions on forums?
I certainly do not have them to change how other people think. That is their own responsibility.
But I might give them the opportunity to think differently by offering information or explaining my perspective.
The ball is then in their court. They can keep thinking what they think or choose to think differently.

 

[Vinayaka]

Hey, I just compared Him to Jesus who Christians view as God incarnate. I’m using capitals for ‘Him’. So Krishna is God ‘and’ an historic person. You’re reverting back to forgetting how paradoxical the Baha’is truly are!

I had LoverofHumanity trained out of it. We still are somewhat unsure of what Baha'u'llah really thought of Hindus, as apparently he didn't say much on it. It is included in the Big 9 True Faiths though, so that's something I guess.

 

[Vinayaka]

I know I can. If I cannot change how I think about things what is the point of even having discussions on forums?
I certainly do not have them to change how other people think. That is their own responsibility.
But I might give them the opportunity to think differently by offering information or explaining my perspective.
The ball is then in their court. They can keep thinking what they think or choose to think differently.

I haven't seem many switches in perspective, honestly. Some learning, sure.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is a huge difference between tolerance and combining beliefs to the extent that the adherents get really confused. If you ask some of the universalist Hindus about what they believe on some hard core stuff, they won't be able to answer you, as they actually don't have a set belief on it. Personally, as you know, I'd rather know what I think, and leave others alone to believe how they wish, which is the true meaning of tolerance ... to tolerate. Unfortunately some folks confuse tolerance with acceptance.

I know you don’t incorporate any Abrahamic Faiths into your paradigm as you are not universal in that sense.

I would expect the more Hindu syncretic type faiths that assimilate Abrahamic Faiths to be light on details about the Abrahamics as the Baha’i Faith is about the Dharmic Faiths. It provides the space for those who were Muslim or Christian to fill in the blanks. Hindus who become Baha’is have a similar space. I’m not even aware of any requirement for Hindus who recognise Bahá’u’lláh to leave Hinduism or even call themselves Baha’is.

 

[Vouthon]

Is there any Baha’i laws that strikes you as being particularly archaic?

I'm not really of the mindset that looks to identify flaws or deficiencies in other religions, given the fact that this is obviously very relative across individuals and cultures.

In the context in which it emerged, mid-nineteenth century Persia from Twelver Shia Islam and Babism, the Baha'i laws were very radical and (for their time and place) egalitarian. So any criticism I could provide is 'relative', inasmuch as I'm speaking from the vantage point of secular contemporary Europe and Christianity. (That aside, if applied universally as proposed by Shoghi Effendi, that's where I'd see some major problems setting in. The moral / mystical dimension of the Baha'i Faith is a very distinct matter and I really have no qualms in that regard).

But, if specifically asked (and aside from the overall concept of divine positive law which we've already discussed is discordant with an orthodox Christian framework), I am of course willing to identify some laws that would give me some pause as to their applicability in a modern context.

I'll discuss a few in separate posts.

The inheritance laws come to mind first. Any Baha'i can write a will, and in that will bequeath or apportion their estate as they please, to whomsoever they please in any amount they please. But if the Baha'i dies intestate (without a will), as is unfortunately not uncommon due to accident or sudden illness, if they have a non-Baha'i child or relative, they are disinherited by Baha'i law. Likewise, the inheritance is to be divided up differently for males and females.

See:

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 182-184

9. Bahá’u’lláh states that non-Bahá’ís have no right to inherit from their Bahá’í parents or relatives (Q and A 34). Shoghi Effendi in a letter written on his behalf indicates that this restriction applies “only to such cases when a Bahá’í dies without leaving a will and when, therefore, his property will have to be divided in accordance with the rules set forth in the Aqdas...

The major features of the Bahá’í laws of inheritance in the case of intestacy are:

1. If the deceased is a father and his estate includes a personal residence, such residence passes to the eldest son (Q and A 34).

2. If the deceased has no male descendants, two thirds of the residence pass to his female descendants and the remaining third passes to the House of Justice (Q and A 41, 72). See note 42 concerning the levels of the institution of the House of Justice to which this law applies. (See also note 44.)
​

Now, in the modern context the first would be deemed religiously discriminating by the laws of all Western states that I know of, if applied civilly, whilst the latter would be viewed as sexually discriminatory. No one should be denied something they would normally be due owing to divergence of religious confession, because every citizen enjoys equal rights under the law.

And because we have family bonds here, close relatives, the law seems very harsh.

Test Acts and other such religiously discriminatory legislation were largely annulled in the West throughout the 19th century, although some persisted into the 20th.

The different portions given to men and women, would not be defensible in modern jurisprudence. What would the reason for this distinction be, other than some underlying gender essentialism derived from a patriarchal cultural context? Even the antiquated British succession law was amended earlier this decade to remove the restrictions placed upon Catholics and those favouring male inheritance to the throne over females:


Succession to the Crown Act 2013 - Wikipedia

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (c. 20) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which altered the laws of succession to the British throne in accordance with the 2011 Perth Agreement.[2] The act repealed the Royal Marriages Act 1772, replacing male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture for those born in the line of succession after 28 October 2011, which meant the eldest child, regardless of sex, would precede his or her brothers and sisters. The act also ended the historical disqualification of a person who married a Roman Catholic from the line of succession,​

The Baha'i succession law, if applicable in cases without a will, has an inherent male primogeniture - it favours explicitly the "eldest son" first and then other male family members over female members of the family.

In the cultural context of 1860s Persia, the Baha'i law would be very progressive.

But if applied - as it appears it would be in a future Baha'i state or global commonwealth, given that the Aqdas is deemed to be the divinely-revealed positive law code of the future theocracy - this would be very regressive in 21st century liberal, Western societies.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I was reflecting on this idea of 'choices' that you keep bringing up, and I realised it's never a 'choice' for me, any more than a person can choose the colour of their eyes. I read something, the mind sees it as illogical, or logical, and you just go from there. We solve a math problem, we come to a conclusion about the best driving route between 2 places, etc. It's not really a choice at all. I don't choose to see your faith as illogical. I just do see it as illogical. I couldn't go back and make a different choice. When the faith says things like the importance of gender equality, but at the same time women can't sit on the UHJ, I didn't choose to see that as illogical. It just is illogical. It's a logical contradiction. Baha'i adherents have come to accept it as part of their faith, but I simply can't.

I didn't choose to be a Hindu. I don't think you chose to be a Baha'i either. It happened upon you, and it made sense for you. We can't choose the way we think.

Yes, I can choose to enter a 'debate' or not. But that's not the same thing.

I see Baha'i is definitely a Choice, that is weighed against what we think we know. I became a Baha'i because of events in my life did leed me to have that choice. It also did not stop there, as every moment of my day then becomes more choices, to be loyal to what I have accepted, or let my worldly self take over the day.

We have journeyed far over the last 2 and a half years Vinayaka. I like it you chose to close with the use of We.

Thus I see that life is in each moment a choice, I can sit here speaking to you, or I can go to the hospital now and speak to someone that is sick and may like some company. Thus I can choose what I do in life, which in turn changes the way I will live my life. We have no control over the the ultimate fact we are a body that dies, but we can come to know that we are in reality Spirit and let that guide our choices.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see you resorted back to the idea Krishna was some person, and not God. Oh well. (sigh).

Who said that

I can rightly say Krishna is God and at the same time is Not God, Just as Christ Was.

Both views are valid and should never become the cause of argument.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I know you don’t incorporate any Abrahamic Faiths into your paradigm as you are not universal in that sense.

I would expect the more Hindu syncretic type faiths that assimilate Abrahamic Faiths to be light on details about the Abrahamics as the Baha’i Faith is about the Dharmic Faiths. It provides the space for those who were Muslim or Christian to fill in the blanks. Hindus who become Baha’is have a similar space. I’m not even aware of any requirement for Hindus who recognise Bahá’u’lláh to leave Hinduism or even call themselves Baha’is.

I wouldn't know. It's really unclear as to even how many Hindus have even heard of Baha'u'llah. Most would have heard of Christ. I hadn't heard of Baha'u'llah until I came to these forums.

 

[Vinayaka]

I see Baha'i is definitely a Choice, that is weighed against what we think we know. I became a Baha'i because of events in my life did leed me to have that choice. It also did not stop there, as every moment of my day then becomes more choices, to be loyal to what I have accepted, or let my worldly self take over the day.

We have journeyed far over the last 2 and a half years Vinayaka. I like it you chose to close with the use of We.

Thus I see that life is in each moment a choice, I can sit here speaking to you, or I can go to the hospital now and speak to someone that is sick and may like some company. Thus I can choose what I do in life, which in turn changes the way I will live my life. We have no control over the the ultimate fact we are a body that dies, but we can come to know that we are in reality Spirit and let that guide our choices.

Regards Tony

Obviously I disagree. But you already know that.

 

[Vinayaka]

Who said that

I can rightly say Krishna is God and at the same time is Not God, Just as Christ Was.

Both views are valid and should never become the cause of argument.

For Vaishnavites, Krishna is God. There would be nothing to argue if non-Hindus didn't say that He wasn't. But of course, for me, He's irrelevant, as that's not my sampradaya. Still, the Vaishnavas are my brothers. For me, Siva is God.

Very different paradigms.

 

[Vouthon]

There is a huge difference between tolerance and combining beliefs to the extent that the adherents get really confused. If you ask some of the universalist Hindus about what they believe on some hard core stuff, they won't be able to answer you, as they actually don't have a set belief on it. Personally, as you know, I'd rather know what I think, and leave others alone to believe how they wish, which is the true meaning of tolerance ... to tolerate. Unfortunately some folks confuse tolerance with acceptance.

Indeed, well said. Guidelines of my church on interfaith dialogue (issued in 1991 under the pontificate of John Paul II) state much the same:


DIALOGUE AND PROCLAMATION:

"Dialogue requires, on the part of Christians as well as of the followers of other traditions, a balanced attitude. They should be neither ingenuous nor overly critical, but open and receptive. Unselfishness and impartiality, acceptance of differences and of possible contradictions, have already been mentioned...

This does not mean that in entering into dialogue the partners should lay aside their respective religious convictions. The opposite is true: the sincerity of interreligious dialogue requires that each enters into it with the integrity of his or her own faith...

An open and positive approach to other religious traditions cannot overlook the contradictions which may exist between them and Christian revelation. It must, where necessary, recognize that there is incompatibility between some fundamental elements of the Christian religion and some aspects of such traditions...

A just appraisal of other religious traditions normally presupposes close contact with them. This implies, besides theoretical knowledge, practical experience of interreligious dialogue with the followers of these traditions…

These traditions are to be approached with great sensitivity, on account of the spiritual and human values enshrined in them. They command our respect because over the centuries they have borne witness to the efforts to find answers “to those profound mysteries of the human condition” (NA 1) and have given expression to the religious experience and they continue to do so today."​

The modern, post-Vatican II Catholic church is big on tolerance and learning from other religions, but equally very censorious of syncretism, whereby different religious systems are diluted and people are expected to "lay aside their respective religious convictions". We see this as the wrong way to dialogue with those of other religions as its not really sincere dialogue in that eventuality.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

For Vaishnavites, Krishna is God. There would be nothing to argue if non-Hindus didn't say that He wasn't. But of course, for me, He's irrelevant, as that's not my sampradaya. Still, the Vaishnavas are my brothers. For me, Siva is God.

Very different paradigms.

No argument from me

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Indeed, well said. Guidelines of my church on interfaith dialogue (issued in 1991 under the pontificate of John Paul II) state much the same:


DIALOGUE AND PROCLAMATION:

"Dialogue requires, on the part of Christians as well as of the followers of other traditions, a balanced attitude. They should be neither ingenuous nor overly critical, but open and receptive. Unselfishness and impartiality, acceptance of differences and of possible contradictions, have already been mentioned...

This does not mean that in entering into dialogue the partners should lay aside their respective religious convictions. The opposite is true: the sincerity of interreligious dialogue requires that each enters into it with the integrity of his or her own faith...

An open and positive approach to other religious traditions cannot overlook the contradictions which may exist between them and Christian revelation. It must, where necessary, recognize that there is incompatibility between some fundamental elements of the Christian religion and some aspects of such traditions...

A just appraisal of other religious traditions normally presupposes close contact with them. This implies, besides theoretical knowledge, practical experience of interreligious dialogue with the followers of these traditions…

These traditions are to be approached with great sensitivity, on account of the spiritual and human values enshrined in them. They command our respect because over the centuries they have borne witness to the efforts to find answers “to those profound mysteries of the human condition” (NA 1) and have given expression to the religious experience and they continue to do so today."​

The modern, post-Vatican II Catholic church is big on tolerance and learning from other religions, but equally very censorious of syncretism, whereby different religious systems are diluted and people are expected to "lay aside their respective religious convictions". We see this as the wrong way to dialogue with those of other religions as its not really sincere dialogue in that eventuality.

Pretty much how I see it. Of course individuals within faiths will vary some.

 

[Vinayaka]

No argument from me

Regards Tony

So you've personally eliminated Krishna as one of the so called 'manifestations'. That is good news, Tony.