Noah's Flood?

[Pilosofia]

There are countless conflicts with any religion. Just review the history of
religion from any side and there will emerge hosts of questions.
The Jewish religion (if I'm permitted to say it like that) evolved over
many centuries of trials and developement, the Christian religion has
over two thousand year head start and looking at the world now just
how far has it really advanced? not to mention the crusades between
Christians and Muslims, the Irish Protestants and Catholics and there
are volumes of horror and unimaginable acts committed in the name
of God and in the name of the prophets, and who committed these acts?
it was the followers! So what's this all about ? it's this, you alone
are responsible for your acts. I saw a poster some years ago that said
this, "To all the religions of the world, for once stop hating and killing
one another", and another poster,"To all the Christians of the world stop
killing one another". Jesus Christ never,never taught killing but love,in
fact He often confronted the religion of his time for abuse and blindness
of the Truth. Was Jesus abused,lied too,mistreated and insulted? yes
often! Did his followers have conflicts, trials and mistreatment ? has not
the Muslim and Bahai religion have the same conflicts, mistreatments, etc. ? In my opinion there is no reason why all the religions can not get
alone together without bashing one another. Perhaps the world may be
in for another "Noah's Flood?" who knows.

[Pilosofia]

Thank you majnun.

In addition:
This is one reason Baha'u'llah presented a path towards peace, that
the peoples of the world unite together working towards world peace
which is within the capacity of humanity to bring about,but it also
means knowing ourself to choose the right course towards peace.
The purpose of all the true prophets of God is to bring about world
peace beginning with oneself. If only each individual would have
faith in their capacity to help bring this about and this is what the
Bahai Faith is all about. Need more be said?

[brettz9]

Pilosofia and all,

'Abdu'l-Bahá in response to this question stated that religion was like a lamp. In the hands of a child, it could burn down a building, but this did not take away from its importance.

Another point bearing in mind I think...The religions could not have survived and grown as they did into world religions without having at least first united many diverse peoples who had formerly been contending with one another (or at least engaged in less than satisfactory practices).

As the historian William Draper wrote regarding Islám's spread:

"It is altogether a misconception that the Arabian progress was due to the sword alone. The sword may change an acknowledged national creed, but it cannot effect the consciences of men. Profound though its argument is, something far more profound was demanded before Mohammedanism pervaded the domestic life of Asia and Africa, before Arabic became the language of so many different nations."

"The explanation of this political phenomenon is to be found in the social condition of the conquered countries. The influences of religion in them had long ago ceased; it had become supplanted by theology-a theology so incomprehensible that even the wonderful capabilities of the Greek language were scarcely enough to meet its subtle demands; the Latin and the barbarian dialects were out of the question. How was it possible that unlettered men, who with difficulty can be made to apprehend obvious things, should understand such mysteries? Yet they were taught that on those doctrines the salvation or damnation of the human race depended. They saw that the clergy had abandoned the guidance of the individual life of their flocks; that personal virtue or vice were no longer considered; that sin was not measured by evil works but by the degrees of heresy. They saw that the ecclesiastical chiefs of Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria were engaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying out their purposes by weapons and in ways revolting to the conscience of man. What an example when bishops were concerned in assassinations, poisonings, adulteries, blindings, riots, treasons, civil war; when patriarchs and primates were excommunicating and anathematizing one another in their rivalries for earthly power, bribing eunuchs with gold, and courtesans and royal females with concessions of episcopal love, and influencing the decisions of councils asserted to speak with the voice of God by those base intrigues and sharp practices resorted to by demagogues in their packed assemblies! Among legions of monks, who carried terror into the imperial armies and riot into the great cities, arose hideous clamours for theological dogmas, but never a voice for intellectual liberty or the outraged rights of man. In such a state of things, what else could be the result than disgust or indifference? Certainly men could not be expected, if a time of necessity arose, to give help to a system that had lost all hold on their hearts.

"When, therefore, in the midst of the wrangling of sects, in the incomprehensible jargon of Arians, Nestorians, Eutchians, Monthelites, Monophysites, Mariolatrists, and an anarchy of countless disputants, there sounded through the world, not the miserable voice of the intriguing majority of a council, but the dread battle-cry, "There is but one God," enforced by the tempest of Saracen armies, is it surprising that the hubbub was hushed? Is it surprising that all Asia and Africa fell away? In better times patriotism is too often made subordinate to religion; in those times it was altogether dead."

(History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. I, pp. 332-333)

'Abdu'l-Bahá in Chapter 3 of Some Answered Questions uses the example of Christ uniting various peoples (saying though that it subsequently been reduced in effect by governments) as a proof of the validity of Christ as a Manifestation of God.

People love to dwell on the admitted shortcomings of religious followers (and also tend to neglect all of the dismal man-made experiments having nothing to do with religion or against it which have brought untold sorrow to humankind without blaming atheism for it), but if they are fair-minded, they will also see what religion had been able to achieve even amidst those who were imperfect in applying it.

Now that the prior religions have done the job of uniting one another in progressively larger units, we stand in need of the uniting of these larger units with one another, as only, we believe, Bahá'u'lláh has been granted the power by God to achieve.

best wishes,
Brett

[brettz9]

As far as Noah's flood, I thought these could be of interest:

Ark and the Flood symbolical:

"The statement in 'Seven Days of Creation' certainly cannot be considered authoritative or correct. The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949: Baha'i News, No. 228, February 1950, p. 4; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1716)

Possible interpretation of the meaning of the destruction of the Flood?:

"The crossing of the Red Sea has a spiritual meaning. It was a spiritual journey, through and above the sea of corruption and iniquity of the Pharaoh and his people, or army. By the help of God through Moses, the Israelites were able to cross this sea safely and reach the Promised Land (spiritual state) while Pharaoh and his people were drowned in their own corruption."

('Abdu'l-Bahá: Daily Lessons Received at Akka, p. 45, 1979 ed.; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1678)

[Dawud]

Some of you may be interested in William Ryan and Walter Pittman's book "Noah's Flood." The authors are geologists who study the former Black Sea coastline, circa 6,800 BC, when it was a fresh-water lake about half its present size. Then the waters of the Mediterranean poured in, swiftly destroying what seems to have been a major civilization there. They speculate that the event was remembered in the deluge legends of the Greeks, Sumerians, Babylonions, and Hebrews, who would have received its refugees.

[Pilosofia]

Thanks once again brettz, but that has all been taken into account.
Nevertheless your points are well received.
Your references to Noah's Flood is interesting, I was using that only as
a metaphor. While on this subject perhaps you can help me find where
Baha'u'llah said about every 20,000 years a great catastrophe on the
earth wipes out all traces of mankind,that is the reason no records are
found. Anyhow it is close to what Baha'u'llah says but I need to find where
it is written.
Peace.

[brettz9]

Dear Pilosofia,

There is this from Bahá'u'lláh:

Mention hath been made in certain books of a deluge which caused all that existed on earth, historical records as well as other things, to be destroyed. Moreover, many cataclysms have occurred which have effaced the traces of many events. Furthermore, among existing historical records differences are to be found, and each of the various peoples of the world hath its own account of the age of the earth and of its history. Some trace their history as far back as eight thousand years, others as far as twelve thousand years. To any one that hath read the book of Júk it is clear and evident how much the accounts given by the various books have differed.

Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.

(Gleanings, pp. 174-175)

I guess the last sentence is in reference to ignoring the differences in age reported ('Abdu'l-Bahá makes clear it is far older than thousands of years as some claim).

Maybe you are thinking of this from 'Abdu'l-Baha in the chapter on "Universal Cycles"?

When a cycle is ended, a new cycle begins; and the old one, on account of the great events which take place, is completely forgotten, and not a trace or record of it will remain. As you see, we have no records of twenty thousand years ago, although we have before proved by argument that life on this earth is very ancient. It is not one hundred thousand, or two hundred thousand, or one million or two million years old; it is very ancient, and the ancient records and traces are entirely obliterated.

(Some Answered Questions, p. 160)

best wishes,
Brett

[Dawud]

You do realize that this would place the Noachian deluge (if that is what he is talking about) well before the rise of homo sapiens...?

[Guest]

20,000 yrs ago modern man populated most of Africa and Asia and entered Europe aroiund that time. It was then that the modern man became the Dominate Hominid species on the planet. By Archealogist records and the remains they have found so far.

Again obliterated is pretty clear:)

I think you enjoy a little tussle on the boards every now and again eh Dawud? Must be hard to ruffle a lot of feathers here:) I think your being very pointed and arguementative but your points on the most part appropriate.

Different view points are important during the independent search for truth if there origniation is not used to slander or defame. Some of those Dissent sites are not meant to inform but to preach dissent. Big difference.

Challenge is fine. Information is good. but citing good references is essential to any research.

Mat

[Dawud]

I meant the "two million" date. (in the last block of quoted text)

That's the great thing about the internet--everybody can preach to everybody else.

[brettz9]

The context of the quotation is referring to cycles of all things...He refers to the cycle of the earth around the sun in this chapter, for example. He refers to "life" here not human life....

Brett

[Darrick Evenson]

I would believe the words of Moses over some "secretary" of the Guardian any day!

'Abdu'l-Baha never denied that the parting of the Red Sea (actually--in the original Hebrew--Sea of Reeds) never happened. He is merely explaining it's spiritual or "batin" meaning. This is called ta'wil.

Ark and the Flood symbolical:

"The statement in 'Seven Days of Creation' certainly cannot be considered authoritative or correct. The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949: Baha'i News, No. 228, February 1950, p. 4; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1716)

Possible interpretation of the meaning of the destruction of the Flood?:

"The crossing of the Red Sea has a spiritual meaning. It was a spiritual journey, through and above the sea of corruption and iniquity of the Pharaoh and his people, or army. By the help of God through Moses, the Israelites were able to cross this sea safely and reach the Promised Land (spiritual state) while Pharaoh and his people were drowned in their own corruption."

('Abdu'l-Bahá: Daily Lessons Received at Akka, p. 45, 1979 ed.; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1678)

[/quote]

[brettz9]

"The Guardian's statement that he reviewed every letter written on his behalf without exception makes it clear that the authority of the letters was independent of whatever personal "sufferings" might have been caused by certain secretaries, and that there was no "delegation" whatsoever of his interpretative authority, but merely a use of secretarial assistance for his huge burden of correspondence."

(at http://bahai-library.com/uhj/authenticity.texts.html )

Brett

[brettz9]

and cited in the same, in this case from the Guardian himself:

"I wish to add and say that whatever letters are sent in my behalf from Haifa are all read and approved by me before mailing.1 There is no exception whatever to this rule."

Brett

[brettz9]

As far as 'Abdu'l-Baha never denied the parting of the Red Sea _physically_ happened, the full context, if valid, would show that He did:

"It was both spiritual and physical. They journeyed to the Promised Land and geography and history both prove that this was a physical journey.

"Moses viewed the Promised Land but died before it was reached, having given over his charge to Joshua.

"The crossing of the Red Sea has a spiritual meaning. It was a spiritual journey, through and above the sea of corruption and iniquity of the Pharaoh and his people, or army. By the help of God through Moses, the Israelites were able to cross this sea safely and reach the Promised Land (spiritual state) while Pharaoh and his people were drowned in their own corruption.

"The Egyptian History recorded even trifling events. Had such a wonderful thing happened as the parting of the physical sea it would also have been recorded."

(Abdu'l-Bahá: Daily Lessons Received at Akka, p. 45, 1979 ed.)

I think it is premature for anyone to say that He "never denied" it.

Brett

[majnun]

Why do you all focus so much on the past ?
Is it not more vital to all how we put the
actual Revelation in action, in our lifes and in our
heads?

The first steps of our spiritual voyage (progress)
mention how to erase the past from our memories,
and then reconstruct etc.
If we keep comparing new and old scriptures, we
will only spend precious time disputing over oh so many
discrepancies.

Using past scriptures and events as arguments is a retrogression,
while the Revelation liberate men from the past. Do you remember
the sentence, you have to erase everything you saw, heard, everything you know (understood)... (seven valleys), other wise in this voyage you will advance not?

Access to the hidden inner universes wont be avail if we
always come back to past arguments and proofs, to advance.
You may see a clear contrast : go back / advance.
We cannot do both at the same time.

May the (written) spirit of Baha inhabits your entire brain cells,
even down to the cells of your bones. May the dead past
remain still, an unopened tomb forever.

[brettz9]

In many ways, given all of the divisions between religionists and scientists, and between the followers different Faiths, reconciling the inner meanings of the Scriptures can be one of the most vital ways in which we can focus on the future...

Shoghi Effendi wrote in a letter on his behalf:

“The Sacred Books are full of allusions to this new dispensation. In the Book of Íqán, Bahá’u’lláh gives the key-note and explains some of the outstanding passages hoping that the friends will continue to study the Sacred Books by themselves and unfold the mysteries found therein.
“The people, failing to comprehend the meaning of the symbols and the truth of the Sacred Verses, thought them to be myths and unrealizable dreams. It is the duty of the friends who have been endowed by Bahá’u’lláh with the power of discernment to study these Sacred Books, ponder upon their passages and teach the disheartened people of the earth the treasures of knowledge they enclose.”

(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, The Importance of Deepening Our Knowledge and Understanding of the Faith)

Or as 'Abdu'l-Bahá stated:

“The attainment of the most great guidance is dependent upon knowledge and wisdom, and on being informed as to the mysteries of the Holy Words. Wherefore must the loved ones of God, be they young or old, be they men or women, each one according to his capabilities, strive to acquire the various branches of knowledge, and to increase his understanding of the mysteries of the Holy Books, and his skill in marshaling the divine proofs and evidences.”

(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablets of the Divine Plan, 12:9, p. 88)

[Guest]

i understant what you mean Brettz, but
here again you use citations by others.
Do you not have a deeper access to your own interior ?

From everything i saw bearing your signature on this site,
i think you are a very intelligent guy, obviously learned.

But should we not be a little more alive than be just a dictionnary
of citations planted in our heads just to prove a point in time?

Access to what is promised is a tough cookie, but the valleys promess
to give access to the inner Friend, if we let go of some weight.
Picture yourself in a ballon, to get higher you necessaraly have to
trow away somethings from the past, images, sounds, experiences, etc.


The word region, in the valleys, means regions of the brain.

[Pilosofia]

Truly the heart is thankful and joyous to read so many views and
quotes. The message cast to the sea has rebounded with many
voices. I have learned much,thank you all.

[brettz9]

But should we not be a little more alive than be just a dictionnary
of citations planted in our heads just to prove a point in time?

Here are the reasons I use quotations:

1) I, as with others who follow this practice, believe that Bahá'u'lláh is the divinely-inspired Educator of God for this Age, and thus, I attempt in my own way to benefit from and respond to the following words He and His appointed interpreters have stated:

From the texts of the wondrous, heavenly Scriptures they should memorize phrases and passages bearing on various instances, so that in the course of their speech they may recite divine verses whenever the occasion demandeth it, inasmuch as these holy verses are the most potent elixir, the greatest and mightiest talisman.

(Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 200)

"To deepen in the Cause means to read the writings of Bahá'u'lláh and the Master so thoroughly as to be able to give it to others in its pure form. There are many who have some superficial idea of what the Cause stands for. They, therefore, present it together with all sorts of ideas that are their own. As the Cause is still in its early days we must be careful lest we fall under this error and injure the Movement we do so much adore."

(From a letter dated 25 April 1926 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer in The Importance of Deepening Our Knowledge and Understanding of the Faith, no. 93

Surely the ideal way of teaching is to prove our points by constant reference to the actual words of Bahá'u'lláh and the Master. This will save the Cause from being misinterpreted by individuals. It is what these divine Lights say that is truth and therefore should be the authorities of our statements. This, however, does not mean that our freedom of expression is limited. We can always find new ways of approach to that truth or explain or explain how they influence our life and condition. The more deep our studies the more we can understand the significance of the teachings.

In this Cause we cannot divorce the letter from the spirit of the words. As Bahá'u'lláh says we should take the outward significance and super-impose upon it the inner. Either without the other is wrong and defective.

(From a letter dated 16 February 1932 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, in The Importance of Deepening Our Knowledge and Understanding of the Faith, no. 103)

2) I believe that, especially for a historically academic board as this one, that many people visiting here are interested in seeking answers to certain questions from the perspective of this Faith rather than simply pontificating to each other, or asking a question casually in passing at a mixed-company gathering.

Even here, however, I do not consider quotations should inevitably be a means to the end of a discussion. Rather, I think, they can serve in many cases as a great beginning. We look to the guidance, in an attempt to "speak not except by His leave", but as the above cited quotation states, "This, however, does not mean that our freedom of expression is limited. We can always find new ways of approach to that truth or explain or explain how they influence our life and condition."

If you or others wish to have such further discussions, I do not think I have ever stifled any which respected Jonah's wishes for this forum, so I do not see how my using quotations would be interfering with it.

3) I think an individual should be free to communicate in a way which is suitable to them, as well as act on their understanding of what they feel their Faith calls them to do.

4) I am facing a number of health difficulties, so I generally choose to answer posts with which it is sufficiently easy for me to concentrate because it deals with a tangible enough subject.

i understant what you mean Brettz, but
here again you use citations by others.
Do you not have a deeper access to your own interior ?

I think the skittishness of some people about use of quotations is in many cases an overgeneralization about the fact that some people pass beyond moderation in using quotations without contemplating their meaning or nuancing their applicability to different situations. I do not see, however, that my quotations were unsolicited, extraneous, or irrelevant to the topics.

I see this as with a scientific bulletin board. If people did not cite research or sources, that would not be of interest to me (and I think others as well), as I am looking for authoritative answers. Granted, individual opinions can sometimes be revolutionary, but even most true revolutionaries draw upon and admit to their dependence on other sources and findings.

In Western education, it is often valued to use your own words. This has a basis of truth (which I can see as a former educator myself) in that it is possible for one to parrot something without understanding it (e.g., if I say "A gookle is a groxin" then ask "what is a gookle", you could reply correctly "a groxin" without understanding).

However, as I feel I have learned from spending a few years teaching English in China, it is not inevitable that one who frequently cites sources must not understand the material. The test, I think, is to see whether it is relevant and nuanced to the particulars of the situation in question.

Anyhow, despite all of this, I appreciate the value and upliftment which a more mystical discussion can bring as well as deeper reflection on personal application of the teachings, even though I may not get very involved in them. I think Planet Bahá'í is a great place for such discussions if you are looking for ones already going on.

best wishes,
Brett

[brettz9]

I might also add that I recognize that 'Abdu'l-Bahá, as our Perfect Exemplar, did Himself use many other techniques to prove a point (not for Himself, but to lead others to a greater understanding), ranging from silence, to story-telling, to humor, and so on. Even when He offered His talks, He varied them quite a bit according to the circumstance, using different examples to prove a similar point, and so on.

But I think it is a pity that some people, as soon as a good discussion gets going, when they see a dispute over a certain point (as opposed to personal attacks), they cast the discussion as an argument or fruitless (in some cases I would say to cover up for their own feeling of inadequacy in dealing with the subject at hand or in not wishing to study or reflect more deeply upon the issue (not saying that is the case here)). 'Abdu'l-Bahá was described by E.G. Browne in the following manner:

"One more eloquent of speech, more ready of argument, more apt of illustration, more intimately acquainted with the sacred books of the Jews, the Christians, the Muhammadans, could, I should think, scarcely be found even amongst the eloquent, ready, and subtle race to which he belongs."

This aspect of 'Abdu'l-Bahá is I think sometimes forgotten or ignored by those who have not considered the great potency such skill can and has, to the extent is has been practiced, brought to uniting human beings.

For if a learned individual has no knowledge of the sacred Scriptures and the entire field of divine and natural science, of religious jurisprudence and the arts of government and the varied learning of the time and the great events of history, he might prove unequal to an emergency, and this is inconsistent with the necessary qualification of comprehensive knowledge.

(Secret of Divine Civilization, pp. 35-36)

[Darrick Evenson]

Brett,

The Guardian DID NOT read every letter written by his secretaries. What you have below is from a letter from in 1938, and I'm sure was true when it was written. I know that SE was in England when some of his letters were written, and signed by his wife.

"The Guardian's statement that he reviewed every letter written on his behalf without exception makes it clear that the authority of the letters was independent of whatever personal "sufferings" might have been caused by certain secretaries, and that there was no "delegation" whatsoever of his interpretative authority, but merely a use of secretarial assistance for his huge burden of correspondence."

(at http://bahai-library.com/uhj/authenticity.texts.html )

Brett

[Darrick Evenson]

No way! I counted at least 27 letters written on his behalf while in was in Great Britain, signed in his name by his wife.

and cited in the same, in this case from the Guardian himself:

"I wish to add and say that whatever letters are sent in my behalf from Haifa are all read and approved by me before mailing.1 There is no exception whatever to this rule."

Brett

[brettz9]

As this is an important issue, I think it would warrant a letter to the House of Justice, if you could provide some examples, citing the time he was in Great Britain, and the letters you say you found.

Brett

[brettz9]

The above conclusion, I should remark is from the Research Department rather than the House of Justice itself, so perhaps it was in error on this point...But I would not jump to that conclusion without verifying first...

Brett