I am the Way...No one cometh NO ONE COMETH TO ANY FIRESIDE! BUT WITH THESE THREE QUOTATIONS
Dear Gary, Michael, Ted. and Don Thank you so much so much so much for your four responses. I have been using all these four slightly different approaches nearly every night in a University Christian Muslim and InterFaith setting some nights 35 souls attending I must say that when the room was full of Christians Gary Matthews's approach and method was most effective most penetrating of hearts and minds. Michael and Don's and Ted's slightly less so but also most helpful in terms of references. One most interested Christian scholar came to me and said: **This is the first time a Bahai approach [Gary Matthews's] has told us to **COME ON UP**! Most other presentations we have heard have been minimalist and reductionist**= his words not mine. When the room had a preponderance of Muslims they seemed to appreciate the Iqan's [egalitarian *We make no distinction between...as per the Holy Qur'an= laa nufarriqu bayna ah.adin minhum of the second sura] Thank you all again and a million thanks to Gary for reminding me to *come up* khazeh You said Gary Lua and Louis Gregory taught in this way : any evidence? Gary Matthews wrote Dear Khazeh, Many thanks for your inquiry. One would never guess, from reading your kind words, that so much of what I know about all these questions I've learned over the years from you! Your notes, commentaries and replies form a disproportionately large proportion of the massive files I keep for reference. The comments already posted by Ted Brownstein and Michael Sours also strike me as pure gold. Anything I can add should be taken basically as footnotes, reinforcing their points. At the risk, however, of overlapping, here are my own thoughts: You are absolutely right about the predominance of these three questions. Particularly the first -- the idea that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one cometh to the Father except by Him. This very passage is the topic of the Stonehaven Press pamphlet called The Glory of Christ: A Baha'i Testimony. Its complete text is available on-line at: http://www.stonehaven-press.com/download/glory/gc-1.htm Briefly, it's true that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. The reason it's true is not (as some Christians assume) that all religions other than Christianity are false. Nor is it true because (as some Baha'is assume) the claim applies only for His time. The reason it's eternally true is that Jesus Christ is the Founder and Central Figure of EVERY Faith, including Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i and all the rest. As David Young succinctly puts it, there is one universal Christ who reappears from age to age. He has come under various guises -- as Krishna, Buddha, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. He came before; He's appeared in our time; He'll come at other times in the future. But whatever He calls Himself, and whatever form He adopts, He's always the One Eternal Christ. These individuals are all the same person. That's the wording Baha'u'llah uses in the Kitab-i-Iqan: These He says all the Prophets are one soul and the same person (Iqan 152). By this He doesn't mean they're the reincarnation of one individual human soul. The same person refers to the indwelling Divine Spirit who animates all of them, and who speaks through them. In a sense, that person is God Himself: They incarnate not the Essence of God, but the Mind and Spirit of God. They therefore are all the same Everlasting Beauty (Iqan 22) appearing in divers attire (Iqan 153). The new attire refers of course to the outward human personality, which -- to the One Universal Christ -- is basically a suit of clothes He can change at will. This principle -- that all the Divine Messengers are the same person -- is the pervasive theme of the Kitab-i-Iqan. It's what Shoghi Effendi calls the great and essential truth lying at the very core of [Baha'u'llah's] message to mankind (WOB 118). As Michael notes, all the quotes and question you mention he discusses at length in his wonderful books, such as his Baha'i-Christian Dialogue three-volume series and his wonderful Station and Claims of Baha'u'llah. They also are addressed, specifically and in detail, in my own He Cometh with Clouds (from George Ronald) and Every Eye Shall See (from Stonehaven Press) -- and of course in various pamphlets and booklets. Michael mentions his feeling (with which I agree) that the second quote (John 3:16) is one with which any Baha'i can concur wholeheartedly. I would add -- and I'm sure Michael would agree -- that the same is true of both the other quotes as well. How to approach these questions was the topic of a brief message I posted to the Baha'i-Apologetics forum several years ago. Rather than rehash its contents, let me append it below: === Many thanks [I wrote to one of the list-members] for your admirable discussion of your research into early history and Arianism, and how this affected your online discussion with
Re: Terms vs. Concepts
A literal reading of _Some Answered Questions_ has led many Baha'is to assume that `Abdu'l-Baha was promoting what some have called parallel evolution, which is nearly identical to Christian old-earth creationism. Hi Mark, So... in contrast what do you assume / conclude about evolution as described by Abdu'l-Baha using alternative hermeneutic strategies? Certainly, my own views have been strongly influenced through participation on this list over the years; because I felt compelled to reassess my understanding using those issues of literary, historical, social, and cultural context you mentioned, and so graciously shared by more knowledgeable members who routinely engage in research based on methodological principles. The result has been a sense of expanded awareness, but not necessarily a reversal of my initial interpretation or again understanding of a particular concept. As Richard mentioned: [ I ] ...do not think in terms of strategies.. while at the same time conceding that I do, indeed, employ personal strategies to analyze the rationale/motivation of certain Sacred Scriptures. My feeling is that most people do. Their approach may not be recognizable as scientific methodology and, they would most likely reject any suggestion that it IS. I think of it as using our inherent rational faculty so that we can articulate and describe an otherwise elusive spiritually based conviction. Lovingly, Sandra __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[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 http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Terms vs. Concepts
However, one must begin with a literal understanding of a word (one may even find it necessary to repair to a dictionary). One must also begin with fundamental principles. It is, I think, better to adhere to plain meanings, dictionary definitions and fundamental principles rather than step into the unknown world of the concepts of another human being who will be judged by the same God. I agree that one needs to start with the plain, literal meanings; however, I think that these are simply the first steps for greater understanding, within the framework given by the Manifestations. One of Paul's statements that I can actually cite by chapter and verse (like many Christians know John 3:16) is II Corinthians 3:6 where God . . . hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. I think that the ability to minister and understand the spirit comes with believers who live the principles of the spirit--love, joy, humility, justice, obedience to God's laws, etcetera. It is way too easy to get caught up in the letter, whether in a literal meaning or esoteric interpretation. In whatever measure, the opposite characteristics--ego, vanity, selfishness, fear, greed and hatred--can lead to misinterpretations of scripture whenever they are included (knowingly or unknowingly) in the evaluation. Baha'u'llah also wrote that Whoso interpreteth what hath been sent down from the heaven of Revelation, and altereth its evident meaning, he, verily, is of them that have perverted the Sublime Word of God, and is of the lost ones in the Lucid Book. (ESW, p. 129) In other words, we can't ignore obvious meanings. One literal statement in Baha'u'llah's writings comes to mind. I have seen it used on a non-Baha'i web site to say that Baha'u'llah is scientifically wrong and therefore can't be a Manifestation. The statement is: For instance, consider the substance of copper. Were it to be protected in its own mine from becoming solidified, it would, within the space of seventy years, attain to the state of gold. (Iqan, p. 157) One could argue for a long time about whether or not this might be literally possible, but there is already a spiritual solution to this in the Holy Writings that requires little interpretation and (at least in my opinion) has much greater import and significance. Baha'u'llah compared a man to a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. (Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 161) So clearly, it could be a logical step to take this concept to a 70 year life span of a man, and the transformative power that can be found in the protection of God's teachings during this life span. In context, in the previous paragraph He is talking about the Divine Elixir. This can also be reinforced by the historic and theological context in which He made the statement. Rumi, who Baha'u'llah validated through references in works such as the Seven Valleys, wrote of men that : Inside they are precious pearls, big and little. These men also resemble the musk deer's bag; Outside it is blood, but inside pure musk; Yet, say not that outside 'twas mere blood, Which on entering the bag becomes musk. Nor say that outside the alembic 'twas mere copper, And becomes gold inside, when mixed with elixir. (The Mathnavi, Vol. 1) This is completely consistent with (and provides precedent for) Baha'u'llah's teaching about copper to gold in the Iqan. This can be taken even further in that the Choice sealed wine shall be given them to quaff, The seal of musk of the Qur'an in Sura 83 (the Deceivers in Measure) becomes in the Aqdas the unsealed, transformative choice wine that is no mere code of laws. In my opinion, in the divine alchemy of the soul, the spirit and its interpretations, as provided by the Manifestations, are of primary importance, while literal interpretations, or interpretations for which there is no basis in the Holy Writings (and ones that can lead to contention and discord) are a distant second. Patti __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[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 http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Terms vs. Concepts
Richard, At 12:11 PM 3/10/2004, you wrote: The proof of the correctness of those assertions would require some considerable evidence. Evidence that words and concepts are not the same? Isn't that statement based on simple face validity? Two people can both use the word freedom. For one person, the term might represent the concept of freedom from corporate oppression (the elimination of capitalism). For another, it could reflect a belief in economic liberalism (laissez-faire capitalism). In order to appreciate these differences, one needs to understand what was in the mind of the speaker or writer. We can approach that level of knowledge through contextualization and epoche (phenomenological reduction). However, merely basing one's understanding on the spoken or written word, without deep reflection and a consideration of context, will likely lead to literalism and confusion. Somehow I feel a certain fondness for fundamentalists. They are looking for the irreducible, the solid rock upon which to build their house of faith. I daresay such an effort is commendable. Intriguing. I would say petrified rock, not solid rock. I find little to commend in most of the fundamentalisms I have studied. Do you feel the same way about the Baha'i fundamentalisms? Yes indeed that is true for many of them. However, the ministers, pastors, etc. of many of them deplore the lack of understanding of their people regarding the development of their own Faith and its meaning. Some ministers and priests with whom I have had the privilege of speaking, seem to find themselves in a web of contradictions from which they cannot extricate themselves. The situation is distressing for all. I would say that it depends on whether the minister is a fundamentalist, a conservative neo-evangelical Christian, a moderate (or liberal) neo-evangelical Christian, a liberal Christian, or something else. The closer people come to fundamentalism, the less likely they are to recognize these contradictions. Can one bear to recognize that the foundation of one's belief is error? It can certainly be a test. Mark A. Foster * Portal: http://MarkFoster.net CompuServe: http://boards.M.Foster.name __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[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 http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
