Hi, Gilberto, At 07:20 AM 12/28/2004, you wrote: >>I'm not sure where you started though. I was raised evangelical Christian. So >>the idea of People of the Book was already rathet inclusive from my >>perspective. But at the same time, I didn't necessarily believe that every >>new age syncretic religion was going to be true.<<
I was raised in a secular Jewish home, and I was not attracted to Judaism and Islam for similar reasons. However, had the more universal, syncretist, and "new age," Jewish Renewal movement (aleph.org) existed back in the late 1960s or early 1970s, I might have gotten involved with it (at least for a while). For instance, there is a professor where I work who is connected with the Jewish Renewal movement. She tells me there are some people who consider Christianity and Islam to be legitimate "paths," a perspective which would have been irresistible to me at 11, 12, or 13 years old. (I could even see myself having eventually joined their rabbinical program.) However much I like Aleph, I suppose I am grateful I became a Baha'i before it started. >> Moreover the question of whether a religion is true is also seperate from >> what God's criteria for salvation are.<< I was very much a solipsist as a young teenager. Truth, as I saw it, was entirely subjective. (In some ways, I haven't changed much <grin>.) In any event, as a kid, Islam, as I saw it, was too close for comfort to Judaism. >>But there are some strikingly inclusive passages in Islam as well. For >>example:<< I read through them. However, if I asked a Muslim whether future prophets, avatars, or (to use my preferred term at the time) sat gurus could have followed Muhammad, and the answer was negative, I would have looked elsewhere. >>And note that none of these passages even specify believing in Muhammad >>(saaws) as an essential condition. Just tawhid.<< Yes. >>I'm certainly not saying that following Muhammad is not important. It is. >>Following the Quran and sunnah gives us a particular path where we can grow >>closer to God.But in terms of human salvation its not necessarily a >>deal-breaker.<< Interesting. >>I'm not sure what that last sentence would mean. I thought the standard Bahai >>statement was that across dispensations the "social teachings" are different >>but the "spiritual teachings" are the same. So are you saying that Most >>Bahais are also Traditionalists?<< If they believe that, they might be open to the philosophy. ;-) I would not say that the spiritual teachings are the same in each Dispensation. Based on God's Will, they are, in my view, both eternal and progressive. However, I was referring to Baha'is who *explicitly* identified themselves with traditionalist esotericism and Platonism. I have known a few. With regards, Mark A. Foster * 15 Sites: 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:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu 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
