On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, diamondsouled wrote:
> The problem I have with the criteria that Baha'u'llah sets out as to
> recognition of himself as the representative of God is that he ignores
> the fact that the majority of good and noble people will never
> recognize his claims of divinity, for one reason or another. [trim]
> To state that every human
> being who doesn't recognize his claims has: " gone astray " is so
> narrow-minded as to begger the imagination. How such exclusivistic
> thinking is to unity humanity is beyond me.
>
> Cheers
>
> Larry Rowe
>
> The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
> of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
> laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
> and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
> unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though
> he be the author of every righteous deed. [trim]
This is one thing that has come to bother me about religion in general.
Suppose I give it "my best shot." I read the Writings of Baha'u'llah
(or of any other religious teacher) and to the best of my (admittedly
limited) understanding try to deal with them. I honestly and sincerely
try to consider Baha'u'llah's (or anybody else's) claims, and at the
end of the day, when you boil it all down, I find myself (at that
particular time) unable to accept those claims. If I sincerely do my
best, am I to be condemned if I do not come out where somebody else --
and that pointedly includes Baha'u'llah -- says that I ought to?
--
Paul Bartlett
|
