Hi, Gilberto, At 05:29 PM 12/12/2004, you wrote: >>No, that's not what I meant. BOTH Po-tay-to and Po-tah-to they are just >>different ways of saying the same thing. I was asking if it was possible that >>saying God has one will is really the same as perennialism.<<
Oh, I see. I don't think so, no. Perennialism is kind of revisionist Platonism. (I would say, "neo-Platonism," but that term is already taken.) Most perennialists, including the Traditionalists, believe that there is a single ageless, universal truth, a doctrinal essence, which has been repeated time and again by various prophets, avatars, or gurus. What I am suggesting is that God can *will* whatever He chooses. He is not bound by a collective unconscious, world of ideal forms, or noosphere to repeat the same basic ideas or themes in every age. God can change His mind (bada), not in the sense of having done something wrong, but as an act of sovereign Will. In other words, He can do whatever He likes. >>But the Bahai writing necessarily do try to reconcile certain things which >>most folks would find contradictory. Like saying the Quran is the word of God >>(including its statements about Jesus) while at the same time having Shoghi >>Effendi assert that Jesus was divine and the Son of God.<< The Prophets reveal truths within the framework of God's Will. When Baha'u'llah writes, He does so, IMO, as the latest Messenger of God. Therefore, He addresses people of the present time and calls upon them to follow Him. He is not, to my understanding, advocating that Baha'is hegemonize or colonize other religions. His Revelation is not triumphalist. >>Sure, but the question is how to view that diversity. I mean a fundamentalist >>might recognize a variety of paradigms but then picks one and says all the >>others are just flat out wrong. That's not what I"m talking about.<< IMO, religious hegemony is the other side of the coin to fundamentalism. Both reflect authoritarianism. >>Sure. Sure. I agree. I'm only speaking loosely. I probably could have said >>things more explicitly. All I had in mind was how most religions have a >>Golden Rule of some kind. Most religions would say murdering is wrong in most >>situations.<< But do they really say that murder is wrong? A great deal can be accomplished merely by changing the label. For instance, why is it that someone who kills another person unintentionally might be charged with involuntary manslaughter. However, the identical behavior in the military is called friendly fire, and, unless the troop was disobeying orders, it is unlikely she or he will ever be charged. More relevant to the subject, the taking of human, in the context of punishment, is termed "capital punishment" and is condoned by many scriptures. In the framework of war, it is simply called "killing" and is also condoned. In other words, it is relatively easy to escape the implications of our actions by simply playing language games. >>I mainly have in mind groups who would call themselves Jews, Christians, and >>Muslims, and their offshoots (So in the case of Judaism offshots would >>include groups like the Samaritans and Karites, in the case of Christianity >>there are groups like Rastafarians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, with Islam >>there are examples like the Druzes)<< My point is that the terms Jew, Christian, and Muslim, in the framework of today's world, are unclear. One needs to specify particular branches of those religions. >>So for example they are all arguably loosely monotheistic, they think that >>Abraham had some special arrangement with God, which was continued with >>Isaac, Jacob and Moses. And these peoples are seen as the good guys.<< Would you regard Trinitarian Christians as monotheistic? I respect their right to believe what they want, but I would not call them monotheists. IMO, three persons in one is not One. Wasn't that Muhammad's point in the Qur'an - that Trinitarianism, even as different as its 7th-century Arabian version might be from the ones more common today, was shirk? >>What different elephats did you have in mind?<< Well, to use the analogy, I think that each Prophet's Revelation constitutes a new elephant. Mark A. Foster * http://markfoster.net "Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger" -- Abbie Hoffman __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
