The Baha'i Studies Listserv On Aug 28, 2012, at 10:10 05AM, Stephen Gray wrote:
> The Baha'i Studies Listserv > The thread is mostly about the scriptures, but also covers religions and > their founders. > > The question wasn't about the word unity in unity of religion, but the word > religion in unity of religion? Do Bahai's mean unity of religion or unity or > "Judaism/Samaritanism, Christianity, Islam, Bab(i)ism/Bayan(i)ism, > Baha(i)ism, Buddhism, and Hinduism/Vishnuism/Krishnaism"? Also, Sabianism is > also an enumerated religion, but it's identity is uncertain of Hermeticism, > Mandeaism, or any other religion. The term "religion" has several meanings. In this case it refers to the Revelation from God, not the system of belief that grew up around that Revelation. The religion that resulted is based on the Religion that was revealed, but the two are not identical. > When Baha'is speaks of unity of religion, they mean unity of seven or so > enumerated religions rather than religion itself or all religion. Even if > unity of religion means religions were aligned with the will of God at the > time of their founding, that leads to implications for omitted religions. The > blog post was about how Baha'i Houses of Worship have strict limitations on > what scriptures can be read. If you mean some religions as opposed to Revelations are omitted, then it is true. but for a Baha'i, these religious philosophies are manmade and therefore wholly secondary to the Revelations from God. As to the blog post, it is irrelevant to a Baha'i because it is not based on authenticated authoritative statements. > > I'm not sure what exactly is on and off the list, but I can make guesses. > > No you can't read the Tao Te Ching (or Dao De Jing depending on > romanization), because Taoism (or Daoism) was never aligned with the will of > God. This has nothing to say with the state of the religion today to not even > allow the scripture to be read at all. > > No you can't read the Guru Granth Sahib, because Sikhism was never aligned > with the will of God. This has nothing to say with the state of the religion > today to not even allow the scripture to be read at all. > > No you can't read the Analects, because Confucianism was never aligned with > the will of God. This has nothing to say with the state of the religion today > to not even allow the scripture to be read at all. > > No you can't read the Agamas, because Jainism was never aligned with the will > of God. This has nothing to say with the state of the religion today to not > even allow the scripture to be read at all. > > No you can't read the Orphic Poems, because Orphism was never aligned with > the will of God. This has nothing to say with the state of the religion today > to not even allow the scripture to be read at all. > > No you can't read the Kojiki, because Shintoism was never aligned with the > will of God. This has nothing to say with the state of the religion today to > not even allow the scripture to be read at all. You are making a logical error. Just because the above religions are not accepted as Revelations from God does not necessarily mean that they are contrary to the will of God. They can not be read in Baha'i Temples because they are not designated as the Word of God in the authenticated texts of the Central Figures of the Faith. The accepted Scriptures are accepted as aligned w/ the Will of God because they are named as the Scriptures of a Manifestation of God. > The above examples are implications due to the limitations of the list. > > Don C, you confused which word I was emphasizing in the question. I was > questioning wether the word religion was used in the sense of all religion or > in the sense of only an enumerated list of seven or so religions. I wasn't > asking if the other religions are currently in accord with the will of God, > or even if they were ever in accord with the will of God for that matter, but: the issue is whether the Baha'is accept the particular writings as Revelation from God. > Why do Baha'is act as if the seven enumerated religions were the only seven > religions that ever existed effectively? Because they are the only ones that are named in authoritative texts. > Why do Baha'is even keep list of approved scriptures to be read from in the > first place? Because according to authoritative texts, only writings that represent the Word of God can be read in the House of Worship. > If unity of religion means that these religions were rather than are aligned > with the will of God, why would there be a scripture list? I'm not sure what you mean. > Is the Baha'i Faith in accord with the will of God? (because there is the > Mission of Maitreya, Eternal Divine Path) > http://www.maitreya.org/ > http://www.maitreya.org/english/INDEX.HTM The Baha'i Faith is the organization comprised of those people who accept the Central Figures and the Baha'i administration as it now functions. > It seems when Baha'is use the word religion, they mean enumerated list of > religions. When they say scripture, they mean enumerated list of scriptures. Your statement has implications I deny. > This can confuse people like the Unitarian Universalist minsiter for example. > The Bahai House of Worship probably assumed based on demographics of the > religion that he'd either read from the Bible or a Buddhist text, since > Christianity and Buddhism are the religions that make up most Unitarian > Universalists. But he read from an unaprroved religious text, it doesn't say > in the blog what it was exactly, but clues are given of the Baha'i position. > It's probable that the list of scriptures is limited to the Bible, the Quran, > Hindu texts, Buddhist texts, Babi/Bayanii texts, and Bahai texts. > > In the apology letter to the UU minister: “Although it may not be possible > for us to change the directives which govern our devotional services, be > assured that we will make certain that neither we nor Bahá’í communities > planning programs at the House of Worship offend any other religious > community, even inadvertently.” > Ommissions from enumerated lists is an implicit inadvertent offense against > any religious community, their scripture, and their founder. > > Don C., have you read the full blog post: > http://bahaitheway.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html ??? In my opinion, the ltr to the UU minister was poorly worded. While I support what I believe was their intention, I am not going to defend it as written. If you have an issue w/ it, I recommend you contact the U.S. Baha'i National Center. Don C ------------ He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not. __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:leave-661846-27401.54f46e81b66496c9909bcdc2f7987...@list.jccc.edu Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [email protected] Or subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News (on-campus only) - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
