Re: Questions about Omniscience and related matters

[Smaneck]

In a message dated 12/28/2004 1:03:04 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dr. Maneck, I understand that you and many others on this List, and many Bahaâi scholars and Administrators believe in Omniscience at Will, Omnipotence at Will, and other similar concepts that I have difficulty with. I would sincerely like to better understand how you maintain these beliefs and incorporate them into a consistent world view. I hope you, and Brent Poirier and others on this list, can find time to comment on a few questions that I run into when I try to think through the consequences of such beliefs. Dear Ron,   Before we start, let's keep a couple of things clear. As I understand it the term 'omniscient at will' applies *only* the Manifestation. That phrase occurs only in a letter written on the Guardian's behalf wherein he insists that *unlike* the Manifestation he is not omniscient at will. I don't know of any place in the Writings where the term "Omnipotent at will" occurs but inasmuch as the Manifestation reflects all the Names and Attributes of God one could infer this. But it would be just that, an inference.  I don't think I've ever talked about this myself. Furthermore,  I have always argued that it appears to be the case that much of the time the Manifestation does *not* will omniscience.   Others have answered your questions regarding the languages of certain figures. Just one minor correction. I didn't indicate that the Guardian's French was better than his English (although that is what he won prizes for at the Syrian Protestant College) only that this was the language in which he received his early education. And he always counted in that language. He went to Oxford, by the way, not Cambridge and he was already fluent in both English and French before he went there.   "The Quran and Bible describe the lives, to same extent anyway, of several Manifestations. The descriptions therein, to my mind, are inconsistent with an understanding of Them as Omniscient at Will and Omnipotent at Will. For instance, Muhammad was very careful to make sure that He was seen as a human being, not God. He is even said to have been illiterate."   Baha'u'llah sometimes referred to Himself as illiterate as well. ;-} And yes, all Manifestations have attested to their humanity. As for Abraham, I think historically speaking it is difficult to say anything at all about Abraham. We can't even say for sure that He existed. Stories are told about Him in both the Bible and the Qur'an to make specific points, but I wouldn't use them to speculate regarding His existential state. "Why did Bahaâuâllah need to have a Maiden appear in the Prison to announce His mission if He already knew about it at birth? Did He as an enfant only pretend to at first be unable to talk, and then to learn how? This seems beneath all dignity to me."   I believe the Heavenly Maiden is the Divine Nature of Baha'u'llah Himself. "The plain language of the Bible and Quran seem to tell us that most Manifestations did not know of their status until a specific point in their adulthood."   I expect that on some level that is true. I think what you are missing in this whole discussion is the understanding that Manifestations have *both* a human and a divine nature. "Since it seems to me that the Bahaâi Faith is very unlikely to be able to grow enough to have any major impact any time soon, it seems that 1000 years is a short time. I do not think the Great Peace can come about in 1000 years."   I'm not as pessimistic as you are about the Baha'i Faith's ability to grow enough to have a major impact soon. I think we will see tremendous growth within the next forty years. But I also think it is quite possible that the Most Great Peace will not come within this 1000 Dispensation. "If a future Manifestation points out that some things Baha'is take literally should really only be understood symbolically (in other words, precisely as Baha'u'llah did in the Kitab i Iqan with respect to Christianity), then why should we condemn such understangings by current day people?"   That is a very speculative question which is impossible to answer. You presume that the things that Manifestation will see as symbolic and not literal are the same things you would like to understand symbolically and not literally. You are also assuming we are taking things literally, which may not at all be the case.  I don't think future Manifestations are going to contradict the authoritative interpretations of the Guardian or Abdu'l-Baha and those are the *only* interpretations Baha'is are bound to accept.   " Was a Christian who understood the Resurection of Christ to be symbolic wrong and apostate until 1844 (and also the second coming)?"   Actually most Christians who saw the Resurrection of Christ as symbolic in antiquity were heretics mostly because they denied Jesus had a physical body to begin with.   "Is a Baha'i who believes that Infallibillity is symbolic, wrong and an apostate?"   I don't know. I'd have to know what they meant by 'symbolic' infallibility. But I do know that if they used their understanding of infallibility to '"raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of false interpretation [ijtihad]" then they there is something wrong with what they are doing from the standpoint of the Covenant.    "4. Does Omniscience include the ability to know all about the future, as well as the present and the past? It seems to, since you believe in literal prophecies?"   Ron, where have you *ever* seen me emphasize literal prophecies? Indeed, I have consistently argued that prophecies mean something primarily in the context in which they were revealed though they may come to mean something else later on. "Pardon me for adding this paragraph, but this is the conclusion that I always come to when I try to accept Omniscience, Omnipotence and literal Infallibility."   Why don't you stop trying to accept whatever you imagine to be Baha'i "dogma" and try instead to understand what Central Figures have in mind when they talk about these things?   What I think is really irrelevant, and you've got it wrong anyhow.    "Since every Manifestation acted consistently with natural law,"   Is this in the Writings somewhere, or just a presumption on your part?    "and acted as if They were not omniscient and omnipotent, to believe that they were Omniscient and Omnipotent means believing that They lived their lives acting in a false way, in some cruel and sordid Joke pretending to be human in the real world when in reality They were Magicians above it all."   Again, the Manifestations really and truly had *two* natures. "Please donât just read this and respond only to my personal conclusions in the last paragraph, but rather I am really really interested in how you answer and think about the specific questions I ask in the paragraphs above."   Somewhat hard to do, Ron as you didn't frame your questions to reflect what I actually believe.   warmest, Susan __________________________________________________ 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