Absolute Truth

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Is that untrue?

I would say Yes, others may not. That is not the understanding I hold, or that I see is found in the Writings.

In fact I found Baha'u'llah says we are to make no distinction between the Messengers. Sorry, but quotes are required to show my thoughts.

"...Even as He hath revealed: “No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers.” For they, one and all, summon the people of the earth to acknowledge the unity of God, and herald unto them the Kawthar of an infinite grace and bounty.."

"...Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth...."

Now on the other hand, God has adorned the Messengers with a distinct Revelation that may appear to us to differ. We can look for that difference, or hold to the "No Distinction". For me that is the importance part as it is about Unity, it tells me to be beware and I try to hold to that principle.

The quandary I face is coming to terms with doctrine, currently, I do not see that discussing doctrine is a transgression of the advice offered as to me we are discussing man's addition to the Revelations. I could be very wrong, and if so I hope I find that out sooner than later.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

This is where recent history is also a bounty RJM. The persecutions Jesus faced, the Bab faced for 6 years and not 3. Twice the time, interesting fact and was also executed for claiming 'I Am'.

But that doesn't make him the same as Jesus. The risen Christ doesn't require an upgrade in Baha'u'llah, imo

I would say Yes, others may not. That is not the understanding I hold, or that I see is found in the Writings.

In fact I found Baha'u'llah says we are to make no distinction between the Messengers. Sorry, but quotes are required to show my thoughts.

"...Even as He hath revealed: “No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers.” For they, one and all, summon the people of the earth to acknowledge the unity of God, and herald unto them the Kawthar of an infinite grace and bounty.."

"...Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth...."

Now on the other hand, God has adorned the Messengers with a distinct Revelation that may appear to us to differ. We can look for that difference, or hold to the "No Distinction". For me that is the importance part as it is about Unity, it tells me to be beware and I try to hold to that principle.

The quandary I face is coming to terms with doctrine, currently, I do not see that discussing doctrine is a transgression of the advice offered as to me we are discussing man's addition to the Revelations. I could be very wrong, and if so I hope I find that out sooner than later.

Regards Tony

With all respect, Tony, to me it's just words. You keep correcting me for saying that Baha'u'llah's claim to station of the Father is not unquestionably greater than the Son in context?

So not only equal (station) to Jesus, but greater? You respond with long explanations and quotes and tracts, which come across as fudging, imo

Plain question: is the station of Father higher, lower or equal to Son, in this context?

Really I'm done with this wing of the thread. As I said, people can read and decide for themselves ...

 

[RJM]

There is infinite mystery in the incarnation and life and crucifixion and resurrection of the Christ -- infinite depth and symbolism that had occupied the greatest minds and writers and philosophers and artists for 2000 yrs, from beggar to king, still going strong

No -- Christ doesn't need an upgrade in Baha'u'llah, or from any other new messiah, imo

 

[Thomas]

I'm interested in hearing other opinions and thoughts on this topic!

I suppose in the first instance the issue boils down to whether one accepts the idea of absolute truth as such.

The philosopher Paul Ricoeur – one of the formidable minds of the 20th century – drew a distinction between 'Critique and Conviction' – science belongs to the first, religion to the second, and in a very certain sense, ne'er the twain shall meet.

The problem we have is not the question of absolutes – they can be stated quite simply – but how can one prove an absolute in the finite, in a world that is relative and contingent? How can fallible beings determine infallibility?

As Lao Tzu says:
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things."

There's the rub – as soon as the Absolute is put into words, or actions, or gestures, or any possible form, it is defined by that form, and the form obscures its essential quality.

In the mind of the receiver, it is interpreted according to experience.

Then it's a case of seeing through the veils.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

I've been pondering the concept of absolute truth in regards to religion recently and I'm curious about other people's understanding of this. Namely, whether you believe it exists or not or if its something your religious tradition teaches. For example, my past religious affiliation was traditional Catholicism, and the absolute, infallible truth of the Catholic Church was massively important.

I'm actively looking for another religious tradition to follow and I admit I find it hard to understand religions that don't seem to have a concept of absolute truth, such as neo-paganism. To me, something is either true or false. For example, there is a God or there isn't, etc. etc.

And if its true, it should be universally true (I've never understand the 'it's the right religion for me, but not for others' idea). This might just be the way my brain is trained to think because of Catholicism though. I'm interested in hearing other opinions and thoughts on this topic!

I have a different understanding of the term "absolute truth". "Absolute" means "independent from anything". Thus, per definition, anything bound to a particular religion, including mine, may not be absolute in the philosophical sense.

"There is no God but Allah"
"Muhammad is a prophet of Him"

are the basics of Islamic belief.

Philosophically speaking, these are axioms, firm assumptions all subsequent thoughts are founded on, assuming that this is true. This given,

God is absolute. God does not depend on anything; God was before anybody who believed in God, independent from religion or worship.

A prophet is less absolute. His prophecy is based on his ability to think what he prophesied, to recognise and discern it from other thoughts, which depends very much on prior prophecy. And it depends on the society whether his prophecy is accepted as such; modern society will hardly accept a prophet anymore, whereas the Jews, in the time between Moses and the prophanation of the Second Temple expected to have living prophets. Thus, it may well be true that Muhammad is a prophet, as we believe, but prophecy is not absolute.

Moreover, guidance is more or less dependent on the situation, and a general good guidance need not necessarily be the only good or true guidance. For example, performing salat prayer five times a day is good guidance to remember and keep in touch with God every day, but it is not necessarily the only possibility to achieve this; having 7 short prayer breaks (some monastic rules), having three daily prayers plus the Shabbat (like the Jewish tradition) or exercise the "prayer of heart", a kind of perpetual prayer in the background (mystic schools) may be suitable for the same purpose as well.

P.S. I am here, as always, not speaking for Islam but exposing my own thoughts.

 

[Modesty]

The problem we have is not the question of absolutes – they can be stated quite simply – but how can one prove an absolute in the finite, in a world that is relative and contingent? How can fallible beings determine infallibility?

I guess personally I think there's much that remains obscure to us, but I also believe that we were created with minds capable of grasping absolute truth to some degree. I think we as fallible beings can determine that infallibility exists because we were given the ability to do so by an infallible Mind. That's just my personal view though, and I don't know if I explained myself well.

There's the rub – as soon as the Absolute is put into words, or actions, or gestures, or any possible form, it is defined by that form, and the form obscures its essential quality.

I've heard this before and I think I get what this means. The Absolute (and here I'm speaking of God, I'm not sure if that is what you mean) is too infinitely complex to pin down or describe/explain precisely. We just don't have the words for it. But I do hope that we can say some things about Him without limiting or obscuring. For example, when Christians or Muslims or whomever say that God is "good".

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

The Daodejing is such a beautiful text. I wish I understood it better haha!

 

[muhammad_isa]

I know only enough to get myself into trouble.

It's not just you..

 

[muhammad_isa]

Plain question: is the station of Father higher, lower or equal to Son, in this context?

Not quite sure what you mean, but as "the Father" is the One G-d, there is nothing higher..
Not sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunties .. you name it.

 

[Thomas]

I guess personally I think there's much that remains obscure to us, but I also believe that we were created with minds capable of grasping absolute truth to some degree. I think we as fallible beings can determine that infallibility exists because we were given the ability to do so by an infallible Mind. That's just my personal view though, and I don't know if I explained myself well.

It seems so to me.

I regard human as a being open to the absolute, the infinite – human nature does not possess the 'absolute' or 'infinite' as inherently part of its nature – Christianity is not pantheistic, although it might be termed a (strictly qualified) panentheism.

But human nature is 'open to' the absolute and the infinite.

I've heard this before and I think I get what this means. The Absolute (and here I'm speaking of God, I'm not sure if that is what you mean) is too infinitely complex to pin down or describe/explain precisely.

Yes. 'Absolute' and 'infinite' are transcendental terms belonging to the philosophers, but they apply to God (the philosophers were not all wrong). But Christian doctrine (as are most others) makes it clear that we can only talk in analogical terms. God as such is beyond human comprehension.

But I do hope that we can say some things about Him without limiting or obscuring. For example, when Christians or Muslims or whomever say that God is "good".

Yes. And I'd say Gods is 'rational' – if not, then we'\re all wasting our time! So then we get into the affirmations of the Litanies in the various traditions.

The Daodejing is such a beautiful text. I wish I understood it better haha!

Me too!

 

[TheLightWithin]

I've been pondering the concept of absolute truth in regards to religion recently and I'm curious about other people's understanding of this. Namely, whether you believe it exists or not or if its something your religious tradition teaches. For example, my past religious affiliation was traditional Catholicism, and the absolute, infallible truth of the Catholic Church was massively important.

I'm actively looking for another religious tradition to follow and I admit I find it hard to understand religions that don't seem to have a concept of absolute truth, such as neo-paganism. To me, something is either true or false. For example, there is a God or there isn't, etc. etc.

And if its true, it should be universally true (I've never understand the 'it's the right religion for me, but not for others' idea). This might just be the way my brain is trained to think because of Catholicism though. I'm interested in hearing other opinions and thoughts on this topic!

I think there are some truths that can be proven or at least demonstrated, like much in the sciences.
I think there is a lot more difficulty or even impossibility of proving or even demonstrating the truth of religious/supernatural claims.
Hence, how common it is for thoughtful people to deny "absolute truth" in regards to spirituality and religion.

I would argue that even though there are truths/facts that exist in the physical world, and possibly in the supernatural realms or hereafter, there is so much about religious or spiritual claims (the existence of God, a supernatural world, a soul, an afterlife, other dimensions etc) that some form of what scholars might call "methodological agnosticism" is called for. Hence the approach of "you do you" in New Age or neo pagan circles. I think it is viewed as respectful and kind.

When I was little, I was not exactly raised religious. Not explicitly or formally. What I did receive was exposure to some pretty contrasting ideas and mixed messages. The only thing uniting the various ideas in my household is that everyone was critical of regular Christianity. Mixed messages may seem confusing, but it wasn't confusing to me. Far from it. Kind of a gift in a way, as it reflects the reality that NOT EVERYBODY AGREES ON THESE MATTERS. I got really comfortable with uncertainty about some things.

I drew the conclusion when I was pretty young that all religions were theories, speculative theories based on sometimes-scant evidence from some hard-to-access supernatural reality, and that people were free to pick and choose whatever theory that most spoke to them and/or seemed most logical, realistic, moral, inspiring, or convincing to them, and they could follow their chosen theory as devoutly as they wished, and calling it their religion would gain them the respect of others. I still kind of agree with my 9 year old self on my hypothesis that religions are, at their heart, theories about a truly unknown reality including God, other supernatural entities, the afterlife, and who knows what else.

I do now know, however, that declaring your choice of religion does not always gain the respect or even tolerance of others.

 

[TheLightWithin]

If you don't trust the Bible, how can you know anything about Jesus?

Here's a thought: One can take the Bible as a source of information and inspiration, without having some kind of full trust that it is all directly from God and infallible. So, you can certainly learn from it without necessarily "trusting" it to be inerrant or even of supernatural origin.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Like, in Catholicism Jesus is God and it's not okay to say that the Catholic God is the same as, say, the Baha'i God. Another complication is that how do I know what's the 'real' truth about a subject if my faith is completely personal and not mediated by an organized religion? For example, wine is super important to Catholicism but banned in Mormonism. Who's right, and if I don't have some authority to give me that truth, how could I ever figure it out?

That's why I think the issue of who has the real, absolute truth is so complicated when it comes to religion, because there are some black and white issues; for example, either alcohol is evil or its not.

Interestingly though, Catholicism and the Baha'i Faith are both Abrahamic faiths, so, devoted to the God of Abraham, same God. At least in theory.
Mormonism too there. I like the argument that Mormonism is a distinct Abrahamic faith. So they all worship the same God. (But they define God in such different ways!)

Rather than a black and white, there may be degrees... with the example of alcohol, it can be used in a holy way, a benign way, or an evil way, and every shade in between. Some religions "build a fence" (I think that's the saying) restricting followers from something that CAN be evil / dangerous.
I think abstaining from alcohol or other substances can also be seen in some religions as a holiness practice -- in the sense that abstinence could be a discipline that brings one closer to God, but not that alcohol it is in itself inherently sinful or evil.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Reality

Do you mean physical reality? Or something more?

 

[TheLightWithin]

But really, I don't see the moral outrage with drinking tea (or a glass of wine for that matter, although I think that's a more complicated issue).

I don't either, but I think what the trouble was at the time was the effects of substances on one's emotions and behavior. Religions and/or denominations are all over the map when it comes to whether to condemn, tolerate, or ignore substance use of various kinds. Some people who are very faithful Catholics drink quite a lot, Mormons as you mention and SDAs both forbid alcohol and caffeinated drinks and tobacco, while I've also seen some church website that outright say they neither encourage nor condemn tobacco, alcohol, or cannabis! (and don't mention caffeine!) I think this does come around to human opinion and agenda rather than divine revelation being crystal clear on these matters (or any matters for that matter)

 

[TheLightWithin]

A key sign that age is upon us is the embracing of a Universal Auxiliary language to be taught in all Nations, a sign that is yet to be manifested.

They tried that with Esperanto at some point in the early to mid 20th century.There is still use of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

 

[TheLightWithin]

The quandary put to us by Baha'u'llah is that he is Christ the Son, returned as Christ the Father.

Which is quite a departure from most Christian theology which thinks of Christ and the Father rather differently, Christ being the Son and Yahweh being the Father. But then, if they are one, it lends itself to this possibility that someone will think Christ is or can be the Father. And apparently Baha'u'llah and followers did think that. Hence reinforcing my confusion about God being composed of distinct Persons.... ??? As opposed to, God is God, vast and nearly undefinable and who knows whether God could be divisible... into persons or anything else .... ???

 

[TheLightWithin]

Yep.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Baha'u'llah is even greater than Jesus ...

Because he claimed to be the Father? Does that take us back to the Arian controversy?

 

[TheLightWithin]

I agree much in life is subjective, but I do believe objective spiritual truth exists as well.

If you accept that objective spiritual truth exists, you are then left with the question of... how do you discover and determine it?
Of course I recognize that is what you are trying to do.
My thought is -- it's hard to know. Hence my further thought is, all religions are theories.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Which is quite a departure from most Christian theology which thinks of Christ and the Father rather differently, Christ being the Son and Yahweh being the Father. But then, if they are one, it lends itself to this possibility that someone will think Christ is or can be the Father. And apparently Baha'u'llah and followers did think that. Hence reinforcing my confusion about God being composed of distinct Persons.... ??? As opposed to, God is God, vast and nearly undefinable and who knows whether God could be divisible... into persons or anything else .... ???

The key understanding for me is that God is above our comprehensive capacity and does not decend into creation.

The Kitab-i-Iqan is the book that has a lot of the answers to this topic. From my understanding of what was offered, is that the Holy Spirit, which is created of God, is the Cause which all things eminate from. This Holy Spirit is the light of all the Messengers, they One and All project the light of God to humanity.

So the 'Self of God' is a Messenger born in each age, who reflects the light of the Holy Spirit via the example of their life and the Words they speak from God.

So no man has ever seen God, not even the Messengers, just as per John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The Holy Spirit also does not Decend into Creation, Abdu’l-Baha explains this in relation to the human spirit connection to the human body.

"Second, the rational soul, meaning the human spirit, does not descend into the body -- that is to say, it does not enter it, for descent and entrance are characteristics of bodies, and the rational soul is exempt from this. The spirit never entered this body, so in quitting it, it will not be in need of an abiding-place: no, the spirit is connected with the body, as this light is with this mirror. When the mirror is clear and perfect, the light of the lamp will be apparent in it, and when the mirror becomes covered with dust or breaks, the light will disappear.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p. 238

So the Holy Spirit, the Light from God does not decend into the Messengers.

Abdu’l-Baha has given many talks on this topic. Basically anything we know of God, is only from the Messengers.

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

So the Holy Spirit, the Light from God does not decend into the Messengers.

How, then, does the 'light' reflect from the mirror of the soul? The spirit of God is with God, the messengers are human. For the spirit to be 'reflected' in the 'mirror' it has to 'descend' from on high?

Abdu’l-Baha has given many talks on this topic. Basically anything we know of God, is only from the Messengers.

Perhaps for the Baha'i.

The Jew, the Christian, (even Gnostic Christians), the Muslim, have the Shechinah, the 'indwelling spirit' who teaches us.