When the next prophet comes?

[I, Brian]

Just a quick note - athra, I think you've confused Bruce with myself there - it is indeed my own comments you were responding to, rather than Bruce's. Just to clear things up.

Originally Posted by arthra

Actually Bruce, Baha'is are not trying to create a "political utopia". We're not even involved in partisan politics and there are no Baha'i parties nor do we support any political parties... All we've been told is that such things as a world governmnet will eventually come about NOT from our efforts but from political entities. In our literature this is called the "lesser or political peace" which will be followed by later stages.

No, but the political system practised within Baha'i is highly praised here as an example of politics working. My suggestion is that it's an idealism that has not been sufficiently tested. After all, a commune can work very well with 6 peaople - but not when 60 million are to be involved. Point being the Baha'i system has possibly yet to be properly tested under real political conditions.

Originally Posted by arthra

Well Bruce it's nice to read you feel we're in the "hone moon period of faith"...Truth is we've never had a "honey moon"! It's been a life and death struggle from the very beginning and against the greatest of odds the Faith has survived and emerged stronger than ever... We believe that opposition will only continue as the Faith becomes better established and in our Writings we're told that such opposition as in the past will provide us with even greater opportunities for growth and advancement.

The point about the "honeymoon" comment is precisely that - a period of strong and unified faith. Again, though, there seems to have been little to really test the degree of this unity.

Originally Posted by arthra

Baha'u'llah only claimed to be the Manifestation of God for this day... and was the fulfillment we believe of past prophesies. Your note that "anyone claiming to be the new prophet for an old religion simply creates yet new schism" is interesting though, since the Baha'i Faith is not an "old religion" but the newest one. Something I recall from the Gospel is reminiscent of this principle:

Exactly, it is neither Christianity, nor Islam - it creates a new doctrine in competition with them. Yet both Christians and Muslimas expect their faith to be fulfilled and completed somewhat with the return of their awaited prophets - this is something that Baha'i as a faith has not given them.

Although no doubt you have converts from both, overall Baha'i is not accepted as the fulfillment of those religions by those religions themselves. That is a very important part of my point.

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The point about the "honeymoon" comment is precisely that - a period of strong and unified faith. Again, though, there seems to have been little to really test the degree of this unity.

"Little?!"

Over 20,000 martyrdoms for the Faith (200 in the past two decades) constitute "little" to test us?!

You will forgive me, I trust, if I find this comment silly at best. . . .

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Exactly, it is neither Christianity, nor Islam - it creates a new doctrine in competition with them. Yet both Christians and Muslimas expect their faith to be fulfilled and completed somewhat with the return of their awaited prophets - this is something that Baha'i as a faith has not given them.

The problem being, of course, insistence on literal fulfillment when spiritual fulfillment is in fact the rule!

This is why the Jews never accepted Jesus: because He didn't literally fulfill the prophecies in question. Please beware lest you reject Baha'u'llah for exactly the same reason!

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Although no doubt you have converts from both, overall Baha'i is not accepted as the fulfillment of those religions by those religions themselves. That is a very important part of my point.

Which isn't the least surprising, tragic though it may be! There is regrettably a consistent pattern of the various religions having rejected the next one to appear, so it's hardly surprising that this pattern has continued. . . .

Peace,

Bruce

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

"Little?!"

Over 20,000 martyrdoms for the Faith (200 in the past two decades) constitute "little" to test us?!

You will forgive me, I trust, if I find this comment silly at best. . . .

I mean that Baha'i as a faith has not been forced into a position of conflict regarding it's own principles. This is something that has eventually happened to other big faiths as their influence has increased.

[arthra]

I, Brianwrote:

Just a quick note - athra, I think you've confused Bruce with myself there - it is indeed my own comments you were responding to, rather than Bruce's. Just to clear things up.

Reply:

And you can call me "Art".

Actually I was aware they were your comments Brian as Administrator here and had not confused you with Bruce.... Apologies though to both of you Bruce and Brian! Must have been a "senior moment"!

Brian wrote:

No, but the political system practised within Baha'i is highly praised here as an example of politics working. My suggestion is that it's an idealism that has not been sufficiently tested. After all, a commune can work very well with 6 peaople - but not when 60 million are to be involved. Point being the Baha'i system has possibly yet to be properly tested under real political conditions.

My reply:

Actually Brian we don't praise our administrative system as a political system at all... The administrative order is our internal system of government within our Faith.

It has been tested though since it's establishment by the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith in the late twenties which is about seventy or so years and is tested in thousands of communities all over the world and is working quite well. The administrative has been challenged since it's inception but as I pointed out earlier the challenges only strengthened it. You might read some about the history of our Faith.

Brian wrote:

The point about the "honeymoon" comment is precisely that - a period of strong and unified faith. Again, though, there seems to have been little to really test the degree of this unity.

My reply:

The tests to our unity has indeed occurred historically as above and i invite you to explore that... In each case the faith has maintained it's unity. Such tests have come to our Faith through past defections and attacks that have occurred since its inception.

Brian:

Exactly, it is neither Christianity, nor Islam - it creates a new doctrine in competition with them.

Reply:

We really see ourselves Brian as a fulfillment of previous dispensations and not in competition with them ...more as a continuation of same religion of God. So the Baha'i Faith is spiritually at one with Christianity and Islam but with updated institutions and principles that meet the challenges of the modern world.

Brian:

Yet both Christians and Muslimas expect their faith to be fulfilled and completed somewhat with the return of their awaited prophets - this is something that Baha'i as a faith has not given them.

Reply:

But this is precisely what we Baha'is would maintain that the Bab and Baha'u'llah was the fulfillment of the prophecies of Christainity and Islam. From our view has been fulfillment of scriptures and prophecies. Perhaps you could elucidate on your feelings on this?

Brian:

Although no doubt you have converts from both, overall Baha'i is not accepted as the fulfillment of those religions by those religions themselves. That is a very important part of my point.

Reply:

Yes you're correct Moslems, Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians are becoming Baha'is and obviously they probably do recognize the Baha'i Faith as the fulfillment of the past dispensations... So far as I know there will always be Moslems and Christians in this world who will feel we are not a fulfillment but who says there has to be a certain number or percentage to accept as a criteria for this. Does Christianity have to have a certain percentage of Jewish converts to claim it is a fulfillment of Judaism? And does Islam have to have a certain percentage of Christian converts to claim it is the fulfilllment of Christianity? By the way, Baha'is do believe Christianity was a fulfillment of Judaism and that Islam was a fulfillment of what went before...

- Art

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I mean that Baha'i as a faith has not been forced into a position of conflict regarding it's own principles. This is something that has eventually happened to other big faiths as their influence has increased.

It is true that the Baha'i Faith has not had the challenge of dealing with a majority of a population or populations. However one can glean some references on how the Baha'i Faith may do in such circumstances by looking at the challenges it has already gone through.

At every major change in the leadership of the Baha'i Faith there has been challenge. From the passing of Baha'u'llah to the passing of 'Abdu'l-Baha to the passing of Shoghi Effendi to the establishment of the Universal House of Justice specific challenges were met and passed by the vast (98% plus) majority of the Baha'is in a unified body. Across this period the vast majority of the scripture has been secure - against active attempts to steal or forge documents. Not all the documents are in our hands, so to speak, but we have verified copies of the vast majority. Verbal traditions aside from authenticated documents have been clasified and clearly have no significant authority in the Faith (though they can be interesting.)

Compare that 150 years with early Christianity and Islam. What were the challenges Christianity and Islam suffered and how well did they pass?

Islam's major devision happened but 40 some years after it was founded with the assassintation of Ali (and then the murder of Husayn, his younger son.) Islam has never recovered though the names of the sides have changed. Islam was sundered. It still managed to do tremendous good in the world but there have also been significant problems. However it's scripture was secure - none questioned the content (though they did question the order of the surihs.) An adjunt to the scripture is the hadith or authenticated traditions - these began in the first century and some have lead to problems or appeared to be contradictory.

Christianity's problems that first century plus - there were challenges to the leadership but those were largely overcome until 1054AD. Some challenges in the 3-600AD period were significant but they were all overcome, not without implications but nevertheless there aren't any Arians today (in any direct sense.) In addition the veracity of the New Testament has been the object of endless speculation and research. Some parts seem highly authenticated while others are highly desputed, not to mention the apocrypha which itself falls into perhaps mildly reputable down to the laughable. Indeed the body of the New Testament formed well into or late this first century and wasnt adopted by the host of Christianity for another couple centuries. Verbal traditions were mixed with the documents (in fact may have generated the documents themselves.) And while as in Islam it is certain attempts were made to authenticate these verbal traditions they were never the less a source of difference - letters from one or another Apostle speaking of problems from followers of other Apostles and such.

One can also look at the adminstrative structures and principles of the Faiths and compare them for clues as to how history may play out.

Islam had little or no authorized scheme accepted for the leadership of the community to succeed from person to person - it may have had one but the general body of beleivers didn't or weren't lead to believe it. Having none ones were made up and competed and through time the splintering of the leadership has continued.

Christianity had a vague statement affirming Peter and electing Apostles perhaps. While the primacy of Peter may have allowed for a heritage of his Apostlic position it is this very issue which ultimately broke Christianity in half, albeit many many years later. Having broken it can really only continue to break - no side of the multitudes of denominations really has the authority to disolve or change doctrine in order to resolve differences.

The Baha'i Faith has had specific authorized documents outlining specific individuals picked or rules by which a person can be picked. All the rules have been followed down to today and the remaining institution, the Universal House of Justice, is elected in precise form per the authorized instructions laid out since 1963. Were the membership of the House to be disabled or killed, rules exist for their replacement as they do at National and local levels.

In point of fact the Baha'i Faith has all the advantages either Islam or Christianity had in years past, but has a better scheme by which to hold it all together. In a prophetic sense, it is the "day which shall not be followed by night" (cf Rev 21:25.) This doesn't mean there wont be problems. Humans have always been ornery. But not all problems end with division and strife. Even in marriages in these difficult times 50% last!

[kkawohl]

Originally Posted by smkolins

In a prophetic sense, it is the "day which shall not be followed by night" (cf Rev 21:25.) This doesn't mean there wont be problems. Humans have always been ornery. But not all problems end with division and strife. Even in marriages in these difficult times 50% last!

On "earth" night eventually follows day.

[I, Brian]

Thanks for the comments, folks - much appreciated.