Re: Request for Answer,anon(# 3) 3rd Attempt for correct posting

This is an archived post from the old bulletin board. For new posts, see the forum.

Posted by anon on July 05, 2101 at 12:06:09:

In Reply to: Re: Request for Answer,anon(# 3) 3rd Attempt for correct posting posted by Munir A.Qureshi on July 04, 2101 at 08:29:50:

Hello again Munir... I only have three points to address:

1) You have been speaking of understanding. Who's understanding do you talk about? From my experience, the Christians await the Return of Christ - then that will be the end of the world/the time of resurection. Muhammad did not fulfill this... so this obviously contradicts the Christian understanding. I do not see this situation as any different from your arguement. Christians all believe that Jesus was God on Earth and that after his crucifixion, that he physically rose from the dead and lived again. The Qur'an contradicts this so Christians would just as easily say that "Muhammad changed the meanings and understanding of the Holy Books." As I said before, how is this any different from your argument. And who determines which understanding of a Holy Text is correct? Most of the arguments anyone gives against the Baha'i Faith are the SAME arguments those living during the early time of their religions gave. And there are countless examples of this.

2) If you are trying to prove that the Baha'i Faith is false to me... that will not work. I hate to break it to you, because it is my belief. If I were to try to prove Islam as false to you, I would not win that battle, and it would be denying the essential teachings of the Baha'i Faith. If you are trying to find out the truth for yourself about the Baha'i Faith, that is fine and that is encouraged in the Holy Writings. If I am wrong, than that burden is on my soul, if you are wrong than that burden is on your soul. It is very simple to me. Our situations are very different. You do not have to prove the truth of Islam to me because I already accept it. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Islam is not so vast.

3) I have repeadetly stated that Science as man knows is imperfect and always changing. The house of justice says it well:

When speaking about the reviatlization of civilization:
"The prosecution of this vast enterprise will depend on a progressive interaction
between the truths and principles of religion and the discoveries and insights of scientific inquiry. This entails living with ambiguities as a
natural and inescapable feature of the process of exploring reality. It also requires us not to limit science to any particular school of
thought or methodological approach postulated in the course of its development."

So if you understand that the Unity of Science and Religion means equality, sameness, and complete agreement, this is impossible because as we have discussed God's Knowledge is Perfect and human knowledge is imperfect. The infinite cannot be compared to the finite. Science changes, God doesn't. It is now in this Faith and for the future that we should strive to dispell the myth that Science and Religion are opposing forces and must work contradictory to eachother. That is my take on it.

If God created the processes of Nature, than Nature and Religion should be in agreement - science is just trying and will always just be trying to understand Nature. Here are some links for your reading if interested:

Memo from the Universal House of Justice about Science and Technology

`Abdu'l-Baha's response to a question on Adam and Eve

I really don't want to get into discussion about these documents, but I think you should read them and take from them what you will. If they give you the sufficient evident that the Baha'i Faith is false, that is your own decision. If you chose to search further as well.

I am sorry but I really feel that our discussion hasn't been getting anywhere.... we are both grounded in different cultures and different understandings, so it is sometimes hard to express exactly what we want to express to eachother.

Take Care,

this topic is closed - post at