... when one accepts God is One, there are no subforums of Faith ...
The Traditionalist and Islamic scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr has this to say on the 'subforums':
"... every religion possesses two elements which are its basis and its foundation: a doctrine which distinguishes between the Absolute and the relative... and a method of concentrating upon the Real, of attaching oneself to the Absolute and living according to the Will of Heaven, in accordance with the purpose and meaning of human existence... " Furthermore, as every authentic religion proceeds from Revelation, "... it contains within itself the Truth and the means of attaining the Truth."
To put it another way, every religion is in two aspects: the means by which the One comes to the believer, and the means by which the believer comes to the One.
Without those 'subforums', Tony, God is unknowable and unapproachable.
+++
"... just opportunities to see another colour of the same rainbow refracted from the same white light."
As you know, I am something of a Traditionalist of the
Sophia Perennis. I see all religions as authentic communications of the One – colour me a colour of the rainbow, if you will.
But, unlike you, as a student of comparative religion, I can appreciate and respect their essential (esoteric) totality and (exoteric) integrity. In the absence of a representative I would champion them in the face of the world (as best I could with my scant knowledge).
+++
It seems to me as much as you claim to inclusivity, what you're actually claiming is a superiority and supremacy of your way over all others, which entitles you to critique their doctrines and dogmas. To offer commentary on their context, to endorse them or dismiss them as you see fit. You view, I think, each colour as a pale shadow of your own white light, whereas I see beyond my own world to see another in which that light that shines, each in its own way, and each to its own.
I see the rainbow in all its fulness and glory, whereas, sadly, I think you see it as contingent, limited and deficient.
Thus I see God is One and subsequently all God given Faiths are One.
All are one in God, but all are necessarily quite separate and distinct in the world ... but that is immaterial. It is one thing to see and say all Truth is One, it is quite another to prusue that Truth in the ways that the One has provided.
Thus I choose to embrace all the Prophets of the Jews and Jesus Christ.
Clearly, you don't, or you do according to your own philosophy. By embracing them according to your own 'frame of reference' you misinterpret, disfigure and trivialise them – in dismissing the rites and practices of the religions you announce your own lack of insight into their inner presence and meaning. All you can see is the outward form, which appears opaque according to your presuppositions.
Hence you can say of baptism:
"But at present in Asia, the Catholics and the Orthodox Church plunge newly born children into water mixed with olive oil, and many of them become ill from the shock; at the time of baptism they struggle and become agitated. In other places, the clergy sprinkle the water of baptism on the forehead. But neither from the first form nor from the second do the children derive any spiritual benefit."
‘Abdu’l-Bahá,
Some Answered Questions, p. 95.
This is the kind of banal comment I'd expect from a close-minded atheist like Dawkins or Hitchens. That it fails utterly to comprehend on the Christian Mysteries says that mystical knowledge is occluded.
+++
There is indeed a Transcendent Unity of Religions, but here we are in the One, the One-Unto-Itself – the Inexpressible, Ineffable, Formless, Infinite – the One resides above all discrimination and determination – but
here, at the level of the word, such is invisible, unknowable and inaccessible.
As soon as a Prophet speaks, as soon as a Revelation manifests Itself in whatever form – a writing, a concept, a person; a pillar of fire or a column of smoke, a burning bush or a tablet of stone; an oracle, a voice in the wilderness, a sense of the sublime – it is a form in the world forms.
The outward form is shaped to contain the inward essence; the outward form is relative and contingent, even while it speaks of, and enables access to, that essence. Nevertheless, it is a form and, as such, stands among other forms. All forms share a degree of exactitude and a degree of inadequacy.
I think the Baha'i seeks to create a religion divested of all outward forms, and yet declares itself in possession of the essence of every religion – and such, it is clear, is simply a failure to comprehend what a religion is and how it works. It's akin to saying if I believe in nothing, I believe in everything.
Nowhere is this more evident to the Christian than in the dismissal of the Sacraments. These are, to paraphrase Augustine, the outward forms of an invisible and ineffable presence. They are gratuitous gifts of God. That anyone should assume they do not possess or transmit a spiritual benefit is utter nonsense.
By the same token, the assumption that by paying lip service one is in receipt of that grace without embracing the form is, again, nonsense.
It's akin to saying everything God has to offer I have, simply because I am.
+++
I personally think putting faith into a sealed compartment, does not allow one to explore all the truths contained within one's individual faith, that is applicable.to me as well, we are always learning, if we can let go of self, an issue I and all of us will face.
Well that's typical of your 'holier-than-thou' elitism at its best!
I would say that the Baha'i mind is closed to the interior dimension of the Mysteries encompassed in the Religions. You do not so much explore their truths as seal them in a compartment labelled 'irrelevant'.
