Dr. Susan Maneck wrote, and I respond below:
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.
My reply: But Baha'is almost all the time assume that the Central Figures were omniscient at will. Also, how can an Interpreter interpret something said by Baha'u'llah, if Baha'u'llah was Omniscient and the Interpreter isn't? Isn't that backwards? What happens is, we then sometimes can and do safely disregard what Baha'u'llah actually said. For instance, if Abdul Baha said something that can be construed to deny the validity of evolution, then Baha'u'llah's statement that true religion must agree with science, is made null and void. We also completely ignore and disregard Baha'u'llah's explicit distinction between the Most Great Infallibility and other infallibility. (It must mean something! else why put it in our Most Holy Book?) Baha'u'llah's plain and explicit declaration that no one (that includes all other Central Figures and the Universal House of Justice, does it not) shares with Him in the Most Great Infallibility.
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.
My reply: Yes, thanks to Scott for answering those questions.
"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.
My reply: I assume Abraham actually existed. Of course there is no objective proof for this, but I take the Manifestations' Word for this and the Holy Scriptures and Writings word for it. Why strain at a gnat and swallow a camel? This drives me crazy when you do it, often, Dr. Maneck. You accept wildly improbable notions like "Omniscience at Will" (even if only for the Manifestation) and the violation of physical laws (!!!), but you question the existence of Abraham.
"Why did Baha’u’llah 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.
My reply: Fair enough, but Still why any announcement at all if He already knew it? Did He keep Himself in the dark (at Will, so to speak)? This seems crazy to me. Isn't it infinitely more likely that He did not *know* in advance, because He had no way of knowing until "God" announced it to Him, just like Abram, Moses, and Muhammad? (yes and certainly Jesus too but I know of no scriptural evidence in His case). Isn't this the essence of Occam's Razor?
"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.
My reply: No, I understand that symbolically. I may not be able to describe it for you in words, better than it is already described by Baha'u'llah and Jesus Themselves. But I think you and many Baha'is do away 1005 with the human nature of Baha'u'llah and make him only a "God", capable of anything and everything except being human.
"Since it seems to me that the Baha’i 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.
My reply: Boy, I'd love to believe that. But , I don't. Now, if Terry Culhane's and Mojan Momens' ideas of the Baha'i Faith leading a re-spiritualization of the planet without eliminating and destroying the older Faiths, were considered acceptable, then I could imagine a re-born and spiritualized planet in 1000 years, just barely. But that view is not in favor, is it? As I understand the normative view of the Baha'i administration and this list at present, the Baha'i Faith must replace those older religions (like Christianity , Islam, Buddhism adn Hinduism) in order to establish a Baha'i government of a Baha'i world. The old religions can still-exist as fossils, but the world must be Baha'i. I think this is the core problem we have, this point of view sets us up as just another tribal religion. I do not believe it is what Baha'u'llah intended. Why can't we join-with good thinking and intentioned Muslims (like Gliberto) and Christians and Jews and Buddhist and Hindus and build a better world without strife over theology? (If we did I bet a lot of them would eventually join us as Baha'is, but not if we continue on our current path).
"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 understandings by current day people?"
e 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 Resurrection 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.
My reply: Nice evasion of teh question entirely ;-))). Tell me, Dr. Maneck, let's say even in the years between 50 AD and 550 AD, before the dawn of Islam and so still, well within the Dispensation of Christ, if a person proclaimed that they understood the Resurrection and Second Coming exactly as Baha'u'llah explained them in teh Iqan, woudl they not have been considered heretical, even though they had only orthodox beliefs otherwise? Now my question is, after Baha'u'llah gave us the Iqan, should we as Baha'is behave exactly like those early Christians and consider Baha'is who take similar stands on theological questions, to be heretics? or should we try to be just a little more open minded about the possibilities than those early Christians?
"Is a Baha'i who believes that Infallibility 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.
Susan, if asking questions and seeking to understand the truth is to "raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of false interpretation [ijtihad]" than I 'll just have to take my chances I guess. Dr. Maneck, my *whole point* is, adn has always been, that one can believe in science , reason adn logic and still be a Baha'i in good standing and be on Firm Ground with respect to the Covenant. I resent your implications., but I am no longer surprised by them
"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.
My reply: Susan, I know you say you dont take prophecies literally, but my point is that if you accpet Omniscience, then you must logically also accpet that Manifestations (and by extension Central Figures *AND* the Universal House of Justice can predict the future literally. And that tis precisely what many Baha'is on this list believe! And a combination of inferred literal infallibility and authorized interpretation status makes the Universal House of Justice able to literally and infallibly interpret prophecies by Central Figures, which is exactly what most Baha'is seem ot believe (I think Brent is on record here about that) and indeed it seems to me that the Universal House of Justice seems to take this view when offering their literal interpretation of some of Abdul Baha's and Shogi Effendi's writings to mean that the Lesser Peace e indeed started for sure by 2000.
"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?
My reply: I know what I think the Central Figures mean, and it is prefect accord with our Writings, science and logic and reason; but I I keep hearing form other Baha'is that my understandings are unacceptable
What I think is really irrelevant, and you've got it wrong anyhow.
My reply: I think you try to have it both ways. You try to uphold logic and reason while failing to recognize some contradictory consequences of a few irrational beliefs.
"Since every Manifestation acted consistently with natural law,"
Is this in the Writings somewhere, or just a presumption on your part?
My reply: Wow. This baffles me the most. I don't need to quote scripture. Just look at Their lives, all of Them. They lived, they died they breathed etc etc etc. They walked, they didn't teleport themselves. Thye didn't go around violating natural laws. Name on natural law Baha'u'llah violated. The "miracles' of teh Bible stan d explained by Baha'u'llah as exaggerations and symbolic speaking appropriate to the times. If you can't see and understand that teh Manifestations obeyed natural laws, then you live in an alternate universe form me, adn communications impossible.,
"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.
My replY: Yes, a Natural one and a very mystical, symbolic one. The Symbolic, spiritual nature and reality is by far the lost important one, but according to natrure, They were natural and obeyed natural law.
"Please don’t 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.
My reply: I apologize for lumping a lot of things together. I am trying to understand your beliefs, and thier implications.
Love and peace,
Ron
__________________________________________________ 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
