God of Creation vs God of the Bible - A Crisis of Faith

[shunyadragon]

I'm still waiting, in the other thread, to understand how you distinguish or differentiate Revelation from mere theological reflection on what has previously been perceived as revelation. Sometimes it sounds as if you are speaking of a new Revelation that supplants prior revelation(s) or dispensations or manifestations or cycles. If one of these older cycles or manifestations or dispensations ends, does some new kind of something or other take its place? It seems to me that comparable progress in theological reflection occurs in many traditions but you seem to want to define that as merely from a human perspective and somehow less than Revelation as received by Baha'i. Feel free to clarify in the Revelation thread. But, in line with what I have been saying about parallel theological reflection and progress in other religious traditions, I cannot agree that there is only one Christian alternative, but many. Likewise in Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.

Yes, I consider theological reflection (not merely) the human perspective of Revelation, and by the obvious facts of religions and their divisions, theological reflections are diverse and often inconsistent. In each dispensation there is a pure Revelation from God through the Manifestation, but this Revelation comes through an earthly mediums and cultures and yes what religions represent is the 'human perspective' of Revelation. A given Revelation, ie the Baha'i Revelation, confirms restores and renews beliefs, as in the Unity and Oneness of God, and also brings new knowledge and spiritual laws such as the law that all forms of slavery and indentured servitude are forbidden.

Revelations and their subsequent Dispensations in some ways supplants previous Revelations, but in other ways confirms and forms a continuum of a cyclic evolving diverse Revelation throughout human history.

I hope I did not leave the impression that there is only one Christian alternative. Like all religions there are many alternatives of different results over time of 'theological reflections.'

[robrecht]

Yes, I consider theological reflection (not merely) the human perspective of Revelation, and by the obvious facts of religions and their divisions, theological reflections are diverse and often inconsistent. In each dispensation there is a pure Revelation from God through the Manifestation, but this Revelation comes through an earthly mediums and cultures and yes what religions represent is the 'human perspective' of Revelation. A given Revelation, ie the Baha'i Revelation, confirms restores and renews beliefs, as in the Unity and Oneness of God, and also brings new knowledge and spiritual laws such as the law that all forms of slavery and indentured servitude are forbidden.

Revelations and their subsequent Dispensations in some ways supplants previous Revelations, but in other ways confirms and forms a continuum of a cyclic evolving diverse Revelation throughout human history.

I hope I did not leave the impression that there is only one Christian alternative. Like all religions there are many alternatives of different results over time of 'theological reflections.'

Yes, 'The Christian alternative' made it sound as if you were lumping all Christianities into one, but I understand now that is not what you meant. Are you attributing the evolution of most or large parts of human societies toward a rejection of slavery to Baha'i Revelation? I suspect the growing opposition to slavery was largely independent of any knowledge of the Baha'i faith.

[Mr. Anderson]

James 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
6 But let him ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him , for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

I am convinced that there is nothing I can personally do that will grant me the intellectual knowledge to harmoniously answer these problems. After all the message of the Gospel is not about what I have done, but what He has done for me, correct? I have prayed for many years that God grant me this faith that surpasses knowledge & love that surpasses understanding. And yet I still do not feel that I truly know him. I certainly don’t trust him in the way that would grant me saving faith. And worst of all, I do not love him. I do desire to, but if I’m honest with myself, I cannot say that I love him with all my heart nor do I make him the central focus of my life. Is it really an either or? Must I simply abandon rationality if I am to believe? Do I just have to drown out the constant objections I see to Orthodox Christianity and become a fideist? I’d really love to hear input, especially from any theistic evolutionists on board, as their plight would be most similar to mine.

Not doubting your theological aptitude, I will only suggest that your above statements carry with them their own answers about the condition you find yourself in. My in depth response would only appear the rantings of a literalist. Look through the context of the verses you quoted above. Do you propose they include answers to the questions your asking? God's reply to Job's questions leave these things unanswered as statements of things he has done with no explanation as to the scientific veracity. You are among the rest of Christianity in not understanding them from what is relayed through scripture. Our mistake has always been our own in thinking God has revealed these things to us in ways that are to be comprehended as any other article of faith. You haven't found your answer before in such a way that could cause you to step from faith into empirical knowledge, and if things work the way there supposed to, you wont this time either. But please let me know if you think someone else has given you an acceptable answer because the rational side of me still desires it as well.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, 'The Christian alternative' made it sound as if you were lumping all Christianities into one, but I understand now that is not what you meant. Are you attributing the evolution of most or large parts of human societies toward a rejection of slavery to Baha'i Revelation? I suspect the growing opposition to slavery was largely independent of any knowledge of the Baha'i faith.

There is a transformation of humanity and release of knowledge with the advent of a Revelation that influences all humanity without necessarily direct knowledge. I believe there is a strong evidence of such a transformation. The world essentially changed in 1844 with the advent of the Bab/Baha'i Revelation. The scriptures and letters to the rulers of the world are the outward signs of a world transformation that began in 1844. The day after the Bab declared the New Age on Samuel F.B. Morse on May 24, 1844, "What hath God wrought?"

There is much more that took place that year and after that changed the world where the principles and standards established by the Baha'i have become the standards of the world. More to follow in the next post.

I also believe to some extent the world was transformed at the time of the previous Revelations, such as Buddha, Zoroaster, Christ, and Muhammad without direct knowledge of the Manifestation of God.

[robrecht]

There is a transformation of humanity and release of knowledge with the advent of a Revelation that influences all humanity without necessarily direct knowledge. I believe there is a strong evidence of such a transformation. The world essentially changed in 1844 with the advent of the Bab/Baha'i Revelation. The scriptures and letters to the rulers of the world are the outward signs of a world transformation that began in 1844. The day after the Bab declared the New Age on Samuel F.B. Morse on May 24, 1844, "What hath God wrought?"

There is much more that took place that year and after that changed the world where the principles and standards established by the Baha'i have become the standards of the world. More to follow in the next post.

I also believe to some extent the world was transformed at the time of the previous Revelations, such as Buddha, Zoroaster, Christ, and Muhammad without direct knowledge of the Manifestation of God.

So do you see these transformations happening without awareness of Revelation as some kind of invisible supernatural effect? How do you explain it?

[shunyadragon]

So do you see these transformations happening without awareness of Revelation as some kind of invisible supernatural effect? How do you explain it?

I do not try to definitively explain it.

We are drifting way off topic here and I may start another thread on the topic. I do not like the word 'supernatural,' because I believe the spiritual realms and our physical realms do not function separately as one natural and the other supernatural. There is an intimate interwoven matrix between the physical and spiritual.

A few comments about the changes that took place in the world beginning around the period centering on 1844.

(1) The independent belief that prophesy was fulfilled from different religious perspectives in many places in the world that the advent of the Promised One will return and a New Dispensation would begin. (2) The radical changes in science began in the period including the Theory of Evolution. (3) the advent of modern physics and cosmology in scripture. Seven Valleys and Four Valleys "Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun." I doubt that Einstein and other scientists were directly aware of this quotation. At the time it was not accepted by science that the atom was considered the basic unit of matter as described by the Greeks, and the fact that the heart of the atom (nucleus) could be divided with the above consequences. E=mc2

The old worlds are passing away far more painfully and tragically then a 'crisis of faith,' and a new world is unfolding unlike any in the history of humanity.

[robrecht]

I do not try to definitively explain it.

We are drifting way off topic here and I may start another thread on the topic. ...

Which is why I invited you back to the revelation thread, but a new thread is fine too. Apologies to Qoheleth.

[tabibito]

I have prayed for many years that God grant me this faith that surpasses knowledge & love that surpasses understanding. And yet I still do not feel that I truly know him. I certainly don’t trust him in the way that would grant me saving faith. And worst of all, I do not love him. I do desire to, but if I’m honest with myself, I cannot say that I love him with all my heart nor do I make him the central focus of my life. Is it really an either or?

Not so long ago, someone made almost exactly the same comment. Then the question arose: "When you know are sure that God wants something, do you not drop everything and heedless of risk, cost, and inconvenience, and with no consideration of possible reward, move to do what He wants?" That person was stopped in his tracks: the real problem had been in his concept of "love of God." It had been incorrect.

[whag]

Not so long ago, someone made almost exactly the same comment. Then the question arose: "When you know are sure that God wants something, do you not drop everything and heedless of risk, cost, and inconvenience, and with no consideration of possible reward, move to do what He wants?" That person was stopped in his tracks: the real problem had been in his concept of "love of God." It had been incorrect.

The idea that that's what love of God entails comes from Jesus himself. The context is not the same today. The problem is that Q thinks that's what he should be doing and is feeling guilty for not being that devoted. Pastors and christian leadership are so hypocritical for suggesting that anything less than that is lukewarmth. The toll that takes on believers is tremendous. It puts them in existential funks and--for some--divorces them from what little faith they had.

[tabibito]

The point is that people, particularly if they have a charismatic/pentecostal background, have a mistaken idea that "love of God" is about how you feel about God. Even a person who goes that far in service to God had no idea that his actions were prompted by love: but his perceptions of what love is supposed to be didn't make it possible for him to see it. And yes, this was a person with some rather heavy duty responsibilities. Not everyone is called to the same sphere of activity. The more important stuff, like doing one's part within a church environment (for example) would make it even more difficult to identify the existence of one's own love for God.
With that said however, a person who does not appoint Jesus as his liege-lord is luke-warm.

[whag]

The point is that people, particularly if they have a charismatic/pentecostal background, have a mistaken idea that "love of God" is about how you feel about God. Even a person who goes that far in service to God had no idea that his actions were prompted by love: but his perceptions of what love is supposed to be didn't make it possible for him to see it.

You lost me. What are you describing exactly?

And yes, this was a person with some rather heavy duty responsibilities. Not everyone is called to the same sphere of activity. The more important stuff, like doing one's part within a church environment (for example) would make it even more difficult to identify the existence of one's own love for God.

This implies church is needed. It doesn't consider that one might not go to church (being surrounded by conservative evangelical ones). Service, thus, takes other forms of expression. Be realistic.

With that said however, a person who does not appoint Jesus as his liege-lord*isluke-warm.

Explain to Q the best way to do that in his situation. Platitudes aren't useful, even when you italicize the verbs.

[shunyadragon]

Which is why I invited you back to the revelation thread, but a new thread is fine too. Apologies to Qoheleth.

I prefer the thread in Comparative Religions - "The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God." as best suited for our discussion, because it has some of the basics to which I will add.

[tabibito]

You lost me. What are you describing exactly?

You were saying that a pared back to basics Christianity might appeal. That is it - "Love God and serve him only." And when the corollary is stated, it doesn't have so much appeal after all.

The more important stuff, like doing one's part within a church environment (for example)

This implies church is needed. It doesn't consider that one might not go to church (being surrounded by conservative evangelical ones). Service, thus, takes other forms of expression. Be realistic.

Church wasn't said to be necessary, and the person spoken of doesn't himself attend church, for much the same reasons as stated in your objection. The existence of various kinds of clubs, whether sports or art or intercultural communication (or whatever) attests that a desire to meet with like-minded people exists, and for the most part doing so is beneficial, assuming the like-mindedness centres on things that aren't detrimental (KKK for example). So yes, I would encourage a person to attend church ... provided that it is not given to false teaching.

Explain to Q the best way to do that in his situation. Platitudes aren't useful, even when you italicize the verbs.

I'm fairly sure that pointing out "the possibility that Q does love God, but perhaps does not recognise his attitude as love" is not a platitude. Of course, I could be wrong about it being a platitude, but his post does show that he does in all probability love God. If that is so, he doesn't need to change course or look for things that are in final analysis, mere trappings of religion.

[whag]

You were saying that a pared back to basics Christianity might appeal. That is it - "Love God and serve him only." And when the corollary is stated, it doesn't have so much appeal after all.

I didn't say it had appeal. I said it's more practical than dogmatic faith that ends up discouraging believers like Q.

Church wasn't said to be necessary, and the person spoken of doesn't himself attend church, for much the same reasons as stated in your objection. The existence of various kinds of clubs, whether sports or art or intercultural communication (or whatever) attests that a desire to meet with like-minded people exists, and for the most part doing so is beneficial, assuming the like-mindedness centres on things that aren't detrimental (KKK for example). So yes, I would encourage a person to attend church ... provided that it is not given to false teaching.

False teaching is rampant. A small circle of supportive friends can be way better than a church.

i'm fairly sure that pointing out "the possibility that Q does love God, but perhaps does not recognise his attitude as love" is not a platitude. Of course, I could be wrong about it being a platitude, but his post does show that he does in all probability love God. If that is so, he doesn't need to change course or look for things that are in final analysis, mere trappings of religion.

Obviously, he's afraid he's lukewarm, despite his continual trying. No need to compound that fear with a platitude that repeats what he already knows.

[tabibito]

I didn't say it had appeal. I said it's more practical than dogmatic faith that ends up discouraging believers like Q.



False teaching is rampant. A small circle of supportive friends can be way better than a church.

and when 2 or 3 people are met together with focus on Christ, there is a church.

Obviously, he's afraid he's lukewarm, despite his continual trying. No need to compound that fear with a platitude that repeats what he already knows.

So what was the platitude? That people can love God without realising it? His post shows that his love for God is in all probability real.