liberal VS. literal Bahai

[IMSassafras]

Originally Posted by Bandit

do you feel for others to keep pushing the issue of the manifestations would become a burden & hinderance for some of those in the Bahai faith?

Do you mean the acceptance of the Manifestations or the denial of some of the Manifestations? Liberal or literal? Who's "pushing"? I think your question might be too vague for me. Please clarify.

My first impression is people can either accept the Baha'i Faith or not. But changing the Baha'i Faith to fit a certain POV is out of the question.

warmly,
Sassafras

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by IMSassafras

Do you mean the acceptance of the Manifestations or the denial of some of the Manifestations? Liberal or literal? Who's "pushing"? I think your question might be too vague for me. Please clarify.


warmly,
Sassafras

in the case of someone pushing the issue of the manifestations not being real divine manifestations, making them less than manifestations & only ordinary men (liberal view)... would this become a burden & hinderance for those in the Bahai faith, who sincerly believe they are manifestations from God?
would that kind of liberal view being made an issue constantly cause problems with the people in the Bahai faith?

My first impression is people can either accept the Baha'i Faith or not. But changing the Baha'i Faith to fit a certain POV is out of the question.

i think this answers it, but i am kind of looking for a yes or no or to what degree kind of answer. i take this pretty much as a no, it is not possible.
thank you again, IMSassafras

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

Originally Posted by Bandit

[to a third party:] [D]o you feel for others to keep pushing the issue of the manifestations would become a burden & hinderance for some of those in the Bahai faith?.

First off, please explain what you're saying here. I don't understand you.

Originally Posted by Bandit

Ok Bruce. i guess i got the writings mixed up with the Manifestations. thank you for explaining. the list of manifestations are expanded but do not grow shorter or cancel each other out with a new manifestation.
do i have that correct?.

Yes. (The list could expand, but doesn't have to. And in any case, the most recent Revelation is always the most important one for that Age.)

Originally Posted by Bandit

this kind of shows what happens when someone from a liberal POV choose to discard some of the Baha'i scriptures, they would not really be following them as established or authentic.
do you agree?.

Once again, terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are NOT Baha'i usage and are therefore extremely misleading! There simply is no such thing in reference to the Baha'i Faith, so calling oneself one serves no purpose and is potentially disruptive/disunifying.

NO adherent in ANY religious dispensation is in any position to "choose" among that religion's scriptures cafeteria-style! Religions are pretty much take-it-or-leave-it packages.

Furthermore, you're overlooking that fact that such labels are also misleading because the Baha'i viewpoint varies according to the topic! For example, in old-world terminology, Baha'is are extremely "liberal" about things like interracial marriage and world government, but are extremely "conservative" about things like chastity and use of drugs or alcohol. So again, using such a description often does more harm than good (as well as quite possibly confusing yourself!).

Originally Posted by Bandit

[i]f one were to keep declaring that the 1,000 year given time period from Baha'u'llah, is not a literal 1,000 years & that my liberal interpretation means anywhere within 1,000 years a new Manifestation will come, do you feel this would damper & hinder to an extent, the people of the Bahai Faith? or would it not cause a problem?

i tend to think it would cause a problem.

No, it would not, because our scriptures couldn't be more definite on this topic! I quote:

37 "Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather, follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise."
--The Book of Laws (Kitab-i-Aqdas), Paragraph 62

So if you even THINK of altering this, you simply have nowhere to go with the idea!

Simple as that.

Peace,

Bruce

[IMSassafras]

Originally Posted by Bandit

in the case of someone pushing the issue of the manifestations not being real divine manifestations, making them less than manifestations & only ordinary men (liberal view)... would this become a burden & hinderance for those in the Bahai faith, who sincerly believe they are manifestations from God?
would that kind of liberal view being made an issue constantly cause problems with the people in the Bahai faith?

People making a general, overall statement about any Manifestation of God not being a real Divine Manifestation would be irrating, but not a problem. It means, to me, that there is the potential of disagreement and the possibility of more differences in opinion about other topics. That is all.

On the other hand, your orginal topic is about "liberal vs literal Baha'i". If someone disagrees with the Divinity of a Manifestation that the Baha'i Faith teaches IS a Manifesation of God AND that person claims some sort of "liberal Baha'i view", then any Baha'i member has a right to state that this combination of belief is NOT of the Baha'i Faith. (Which it IS NOT.) So why state it in the first place, I ask of you, Bandit? This view is not of the Baha'i Faith, at all. It is, on the other hand, a view of the individual, which is acceptable, because we, mankind, have free will and are able to freely make our own decisions and have our own opinions.


I would like to reiterate what Bruce and I have already said about "liberal" and "literal" Baha'i. These terms are not Baha'i, at all, and will never be Baha'i terms, and no one will find them in any of the Baha'i Writings today or in the future. I, personally, would not describe the Baha'i Faith using these terms. I am only using these terms because of the topic of this thread.

I hope this clarifies the conversation more.

Warmly,
Sass

[Bandit]

Hello, IMSassafras & BruceDLimber

i want to say thank you for being so patient with me. in all honesty, your last two postings have answered - completely answered my questions.
i feel if i were to clarify anything at this point, there would not be much in the Baha'i Religion left except for confusion, which is typical of a liberal view. i dont think my liberal interpretation of Baha'i scripture would be a good thing.

You have both been great to talk to about this & the truth is, we are in agreement all the way around.
This has been real good for me & you did a real nice job keeping unity & the core of your faith alive.
It is friday, so instead of dragging this out another week, i will stop here.
i will be back to visit & delighted to chat again (only about something different next time).
Have a wonderful weekend!

[IMSassafras]

Bandit,

It was a pleasure answering your questions.

I hope our answers have helped you concerning the original post by Wil, "liberal vs literal Christianity". And I hope the other "liberal vs literal" threads have added clarity for you as well.

Have a nice weekend, yourself.

warmly,
Sassafras