Saturday, October 23, 2010

On the Bahai' cult: A critique of the Bahai' faith

I believe I am called to write about this particular subject for several reasons, but none greater than the fact that I have a friend in Apologetics whose family is aligned with this cult. At any rate, once again it will be important to begin with the background of this particular faith movement.

This particular group was started up by a Persian by the name of Siyyid Ali Muhammad in 1844 when he declared that he had Divine Revelation. Similar to what the Muslims teach about Yeshua ushering in an age of peace in the form of the future so-called prophet Muhammad, Siyyid Ali Muhammad or "Bab" believed that there would be a second messenger greater than he whom would usher in an age of peace and justice. His portrayal is also extremely similar to John the Baptist's role and his understanding of Yeshua. This messenger of God was known as Baha'u'llah, whom bears the role of the same understanding of Yeshua in Messianic Judaism. He was born to a wealthy family and desired to help the poor. He declared that he received a vision from God in 1852.

Unlike the other popular cults we have seen, this religion advocates a degree of pluralism as we will see. Of course with our previous article on logic, self refuting claims can not be applied to reality. What the Bahai' cult actually teaches is a form of religious pluralism which falls into a self refuting trap, since all religions can not be true, since they contradict each other. This will be important to keep in mind. The prophets in this particular religion are Moses, Abraham, Yeshua, Krishna, Muhammad and Buddha, whom it is said by those of the Bahai' cult were sent to show everyone how to worship God. Baha'u'llah was imprisoned for 40 years and wrote over 100 volumes of information still utilized by the Bahai' community today. Baha'u'llah died in exile in 1892...and has not seen a resurrection since.

I believe that it will be extremely crucial to recognize what the Bahai' cult actually teaches in order to gain a grasp on this understanding, and this will be a great lead-in to our understanding on faith systems as we dive into Eastern religions. Let us look directly at what the Bahai' faith understands given the writings of Baha'u'llah. "All-praise to the unity of God, and all honor to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things, Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and subtle elements of His creation, and Who, rescuing His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction, hath received them into His kingdom of incorruptible glory. Nothing short of His all-encompassing grace, His all-pervading mercy, could have possibly achieved it. How could it, otherwise, have been possible for sheer nothingness to have acquired by itself the worthiness and capacity to emerge from its state of non-existence into the realm of being?" http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-12.html

As with most religions that copy off of Christian/Messianic understandings, this faith indeed contains some of the same qualities. The Lord is incomparable and the all-glorious Ruler of the universe who created the world. Of this we can not disagree with, and we see the same thing written in Romans 1:20 " 20For (A)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (B)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. " This seems to infer a uniformity of God's nature between most religions, that God is in unity.

However, there is a problem with the Bahai's understanding. That God is centered around a Oneness doctrine. Of course, this does not adhere with Deuteronomy 6:4 which infers a plurality of God's nature with its understanding in Adonai Echad, plurality of unity. This already is enough to contradict the core message of religious pluralism endorsed within its viewpoints, but we shall continue forward in spite of this. Is the Bahai's faith self consistent? "Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. "

This is problematic within its structure. What we have here is the revelation of God to Baha'u'llah from God. However, as he states, that the Unseen can in no wise reveal his essence unto men...it is questioned why this attempt to do so if it can not be done? That is self refuting logically. Nonetheless we continue ""Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise."

In this way we would once again see no problem with this understanding of God. One of the problematic structures we would see is that Krishna supported a different God than this in Hinduism...for example there are about 330 gods in the Hinduistic faith. Whereas, Muhammad speaks of there being only one God in unity. Thus it would appear problematic for those in support of the understanding of the Bahai' cult to support all of these aforestated gentlemen as prophets of God. This needs to be seen as a contradiction. Secondly, the other contradiction is that Baha'u'llah has already stated that God can not reveal himself to man. But here, God is indeed revealing himself to man. For anybody able to see logically through theological claims, this should be seen as being problematic to the structure of the Bahai's understanding.

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-12.html

Does this Eastern religious influence cease to be seen as we continue along? No, we can see that the Bahai' cult does not seem to care much about refuting itself. It should be thought of logically to proclaim the Bahai' cult as being ad hoc for this reason. "The purpose of God in creating man hath been, and will ever be, to enable him to know his Creator and to attain His Presence. To this most excellent aim, this supreme objective, all the heavenly Books and the divinely-revealed and weighty Scriptures unequivocally bear witness. Whoso hath recognized the Day Spring of Divine guidance and entered His holy court hath drawn nigh unto God and attained His Presence, a Presence which is the real Paradise, and of which the loftiest mansions of heaven are but a symbol." Here we see a supporting structure of all of what they refer to as the "divinely revealed" scriptures, which we see above is in support of religious pluralism. There is a huge problem with this understanding however. The books that it is drawing from...in its context, anybody whom has had divinely revealed revelation, all contradict one another. New Age understanding often draws to these conclusions...and I've noticed this understanding a bit with the Catholic church today especially. What becomes a problem is when we look at something simply as basic as Yeshua. I have already written articles about Judaism and the Muslim faith, and Christian understanding discoursing some of the differences between their understandings about Yeshua. If this be the case, what we can logically deduce is that not all of these faiths may be true at the same time in the same sense.

We shall continue with the understanding of the human soul in the Bahai' faith. The human soul is described here "Know thou that the soul of man is exalted above, and is independent of all infirmities of body or mind. That a sick person showeth signs of weakness is due to the hindrances that interpose themselves between his soul and his body, for the soul itself remaineth unaffected by any bodily ailments. Consider the light of the lamp. Though an external object may interfere with its radiance, the light itself continueth to shine with undiminished power. In like manner, every malady afflicting the body of man is an impediment that preventeth the soul from manifesting its inherent might and power. When it leaveth the body, however, it will evince such ascendancy, and reveal such influence as no force on earth can equal. Every pure, every refined and sanctified soul will be endowed with tremendous power, and shall rejoice with exceeding gladness. " This is a fairly universal explanation of the soul made by most religions today. One of the issues with that there is no signs of actual sin which can affect the soul and its connection to God. Man is seen as essentially good in nature, whereas in the Bible it is declared that all have fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). However, a major issue becomes here "And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty." Essentially the teaching espoused within this particular doctrine is that man will become as equal to God. This we have seen also in many New Age teachings today. The Bible declares that man's soul will become married to God, but we will not actually become God and his attributes...especially that of infinite, since we each had a beginning. One is also compelled to ask which road one must take in order to reach God, since this particular religion encompasses so many different religions and roads to take. http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-25.html

We continue further with what man will do when he dies. Especially this is of concern regarding Yeshua's resurrection. Do the Bahai' believe this was a physical resurrection? It becomes impossible with their theological understanding "“The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things.” There would be liberal Christians today whom would agree with the same. However Rav Shaul states in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 “Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.” How it must be asked may this be reconciled with a nonliteral resurrection, being that the disciples saw an empty tomb and the risen Lord, as did 500 other witnesses? It certainly baffles the mind if these divine manifestations are not of the body as to what the talmidim and Rav Shaul were seeing and are teaching in these regards. Seeing the risen Lord, and attempting to combine that with these teachings above also serve as a contradiction within the Bahai' faith.

In reply to those who believe in the Bahai' cult, I believe it important to state that the logic within this understanding is certainly lacking. The religion should be seen as an ad hoc expression of faith, one that is made up and certainly can not be applied to logic given its self refuting nature. For this reason, I encourage those to seek out a true way of repentence that can not be found in many ways to God, but as Yeshua states in John 14:6- "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." It would therefore be encouraged to the Bahai' proponents that they seek out the truth in Yeshua, and come to understand where true salvation may be found, as Moses, one of their prophets also declares in Leviticus 17:11, that atonement can only be had through a blood sacrifice. It is once again stretched to those seeking for truth in other areas...necessary to declare that truth may not be found in any other theological understanding than the one that we have in Yeshua's teachings, whom is BOTH God and man.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

The Nature of Truth: A Biblical viewpoint

We have looked at some overwhelming evidential support to demonstrate the validity of Messianic Judaism/Christianity from a Historical and Sociological perspective up to this point. We have demonstrated a very crude understanding to Biblical Exegesis and Hermeneutics, taking the Bible at face value, and have demonstrated how to let Scripture interpret Scripture. However, in our postmodern age, what we see from many people (and this is often arbitrarily done by many) is an attack on the nature of Truth. This directly affects our understanding of the Bible. Thus, its important to set things straight. What I want to discuss with people today is a subject that many Christian Apologists touch on and I think EXTREMELY well. What I think is important, is that we encourage and commend these Christian Philosophers..the Presuppositional Apologists. They are actually correct to make the claims that they do. This is not Aristetolian Logic...it is in fact Biblically based logic because it was created by God first. Aristotle merely is credited with the discovery and in fact refuted his own reasoning.

I need to make the point that I used to have a strong fascination with Philosophers for many years while still a Christian Apologist, and have studied the minds of Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Hume, Kant...amongst others, but also Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, and the early church fathers. I do not intend on spending a lot of time on Philosophy, as my intention is more to look at Biblically related subjects, and reconcile the Jews and the Christians. I may decide to bring some of my Philosophical arguments from my former site to here, but I do not feel called to do so at this time. It must be understood at the same time, this understanding is extremely useful when you are engaged in a debate, and it is extremely effective for Presuppositional Apologetics. First lets touch base on what logic actually is. Most people recognize that there are different principles of logic that are valuable to all of our areas of study. Metaphysics is an underlying reality for all studies and disciplines that we have. Regardless of whether people recognize the principles as being valuable or not, they are utilized by ALL people within the world today. Let us take a look at some important foundational principles. The Principle of Excluded Middle states that it must either be one thing, or the opposite, but it can not be both. Logically this is expressed as Either a or non-a, not both. The Principle of Identity states that something is what it is. Its very simple. A wall that I am touching, is in fact the wall that I am touching. Logically, this is expressed as a = a. The final principle of logic that I want to look at today is the Principle of noncontradiction. This states that something can not both be and not be at the same time in the same sense. IOW, one can not say of something that it is and is not at the same time in the same sense. In otherwords a is not = to non-a. Also, causality is at the central core to most Scientific arguments and Christian/Messianic Jewish Apologetics. Causality states that for every effect, there must be a cause. Its important that we get an accurate cause, or else we are committing the fallacy of False Cause and Effect. We will touch base on a few aspects of Science later...as we will actually have a guess writer, a Doctorate in Pharmacy..with a background of Biology discuss with us the importance of Creation Science vs. Evolution. I'm excited about the two topics he will be writing about. He will be discussing Irreducible Complexity and the Genetic Code, two subjects which while he was going to school for his Scientific education that he believes actually refutes Evolution, instead of supports it. He does not see a way to compromise the two.

Anything which goes against the principles of logic is what is known as a contradiction. This is because all of the Principles of logic are deducible to the Principle of Contradiction. This is the central principle to logical understanding, and nothing makes sense without it. When people do not utilize them, we see what are known as self stultified arguments. A self stultified argument is defined by Dr. Glenn Miller at www.christian-thinktank.com/stult2.html. He defines it as an argument which undercuts itself, the case that it advances as proof, the presuppositions inherent in the subject matter being discussed, or the presuppositions inherent within the speech act. IOW, this black horse is not black, is a contradiction. A statement such as, this horse is black only half of the time is another example. Thus the contradiction is reflective of what does not correspond to reality, since it serves to undercut itself. Given the principles of logic that we have, this would infer that the opposite is true (although, if one feels necessary to do so, it may be necessary for someone else to actually go about and prove the opposite to be true). Essentially, that which is logical corresponds to reality. This is known as the Correspondence Theory of Truth and is the foundational structure according to logic that truth is centered around. All other theories of truth, including the Coherence and Intentionalist utilize this Theory in their formation of their understanding of truth.

The Correspondence Theory of truth is centered around an understanding which is known as Absolute Truth..truth that corresponds to reality for all places and at all times. In recent years, due to the Philosophical understandings of several movements which we will be discussing soon, including Postmodernism, Modernistic understandings from David Hume and Immanuel Kant, and Mysticism, Absolute truth has been under question. As we look into these movements later, we will discover from these Philosophical movements is not only are they self refuting, but they are not centrally based on sound Metaphysics centered around the Principles of Noncontradiction. They also do not do anything to discourage the central principles of logic, which should encourage Christians of all understandings around the world today!

The attacks on Absolute truth are centrally based around a Philosophical understanding known as Relativism, but also coming from the likes of Postmodernists and Existentialists, and we will look at this understanding in detail. This understanding comes CENTRALLY from a Greek understanding. The Stoics and Epicureans were masters at utilizing this type of understanding, and even the beginnings of Atheism may be seen in Protagoras. Socrates in an exchange with Protagoras, made the statement that there is no truth. We see this understanding quite frequently from Relativists today. Socrates successfully refuted Protagoras, demonstrating how his statement was false. Protagoras, in turn, conceded his argument to Socrates understanding the flaw that he had made. It is within the Christian hope today that we may see some of the same progress made within the understandings of people whom advocate these types of arguments against Absolute Truth today, so that the may begin to see what truth really is, and answer that all important question which Pilate asked Yeshua before being crucified. Yeshua states "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me." in John 14:6. This statement alone gives an indication of absolute truth, and anything contrary to this understanding is against the Bible. Let us take a look at statements frequently given by people whom are in disagreement with truth today (even from some of the most brilliant people....don't let this startle you however. They might be smart in certain areas, but not in the area of Philosophy).

A relativist may make the claim "There is no absolute truth." However, there is a problem within this claim. This statement is being made in an absolute manner. If there is no absolute truth, this means that the statement that there is no absolute truth, would be an absolute truth in and of itself. If we wish to make the claim that the statement is not true..then of course its not true that there is no absolute truth. Thus this is a self stultifying argument that does not correspond to reality.

Other statements made frequently which are illogical include "Everything is relative" and "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me." Also "Truth is based on perspective." The famous, Friedrich Nietzsche was quoted as stating, "There are no facts, only interpretations." Others are "all sentences are meaningless" and "Logic does not correspond to reality." Also "You can't be certain about anything."

Lets take a look at these claims in turn. Everything is relative is a statement that is meant to be expressed in an absolute manner, since it encompasses Everything. This is a sweeping generalization and is also self refuting. If it is not absolute, then the statement everything is relative becomes something logically impossible, known as a infinite regress, since it would then be centered around an understanding encompassing that it must be relative to Sam. If its absolutely true for Sam, then its not relative, and we have successfully refuted Relativism. This cycle would continue to absurdity, thus we note that this is an argument which is a reductio ad absurdum.

The statement "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me" may be seen to be obvious. If this statement is true for you that what I"m believing is also true for you and for me...then what I am believing is not true. Thus it is not really true for me, and this statement and understanding is centered around fallacious logic.

"All sentences are meaningless" is a claim which begs the question.."Including this one?" Thus in order for this to be true, "all sentences are meaningless." is in fact a sentence that is meaningless..thus providing meaning to sentences.

"There are no facts, only interpretations" contains the same error. This statement being made is a statement of fact, thus must be seen as counter intuitive to an interpretation. This statement if not factual in its content allows for facts to actually exist, and if it is indeed true, becomes a fact itself, thus it is self refuting.

"You can't be certain about anything" is a claim that is centered around skeptical arguments, such as one particular Philosopher we will be looking at, David Hume, the leader of the skepticism of today's society. This statement commits the problematic structure within its outlook that if you can't be certain about anything, how can the skeptic be certain of this claim? If he can't be certain that we can't be certain about anything, then is self refuting as it violates the principle of noncontradiction. You can at least be certain of that. Augustine, as we will find out later, discovered this problem many centuries before David Hume came to this conclusion.

"Logic does not correspond to reality" is the final one we will look at for right now. I would encourage those who are interested in learning more about Epistemology and Metayphysics to take a peek at Dr. Glenn Miller's article. What can be seen from this sentence? It is a statement that is attempting to accord something to reality, thus it is an attempt to have something correspond to reality. What is this sentence utilizing? Since its coming to a conclusion, and is making a statement of "is" as opposed to "is not" it is implicitly utilizing the law of noncontradiction within the claim. What this statement is actually doing is implicitly arguing that the logic that it is utilizing does not correspond to reality. Thus, since this statement is utilizing logic, that would include the statement being made about reality. Hence, it is self refuting to make this claim.

This is the beginning of self stultifying claims. We will investigate how this applies to worldviews as we go into the understandings of different Philosophers in some articles to come. Also, be on the lookout for some interesting writings from an actual Scientist who is working in the field of Pharmacy (incidentally, having much to do with Pharmacology) in the weeks to come! Shalom and blessings.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Stuff to come

Hello to all, and shalom.

The next couple of weeks will be filled with some action packed and funfilled Apologetic material as always. We will be evaluating more religious movements, such as Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions such as Jainism, Shintoism and Confucianism.

Also I will be touching base on a few of the leading Philosophical movements of our day, led by Skeptic David Hume, Agnostic Immanuel Kant and some Postmodernistic understanding which will be key to address. We will evaluate the meaning of "truth" and see how this corresponds with a Biblical understanding.

I also want to address some Scientific topics as a side project as well, largely in the areas of studies of Science that I have studied intensely, which are Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Some of the readers here know that I have been kind of had forced upon me, topics especially relevant in the studies of Science, due to the fact that two of my best friends are Scientists who are both Creationists. One is an Aerospace Engineer, and contains a Masters degree..he is especially interested in the understanding of space and Cosmology and how the Universe works and the age of the universe...which relates to his background as well. My other friend is specialized in Pharmacology/Pharmacy, and contains a doctorate in this field related study. He also has an undergraduate degree in Biology. He believes that Science is not dependent upon Evolution, and that there are some very related areas in Biology which undercut the conjecture known as Evolution. He also sees problems with transitional fossils, and the functioning of transitional fossils if there were ever found some to exist, since Irreducible Complex structures such as the eye exist. His understanding is that since IC exists, that there is no way that a transitional fossil could function, since the IC system could not function with one of its parts missing. So in the process of growing up with my Theistic Evolution understanding, challenges were presented to my understanding by...two unlikely sources whom happen to be my best friends, and both containing very prominent positions in their related fields of study. However, since I myself am not a Scientist (though my two Science friends believe my Scientific knowledge to be adequate) this will not be exhaustive as the main crux of our focus needs to be on Scripture, but it will cover an over view of topics such as, is Creation a viable Scientific option, and does it contain a Theory, What types of Science can be utilized to refute Evolution and demonstrate the validity of the Creation Science theory, are there any Creation Scientists who have published peer reviewed literature, and is Creation Science merely limited to the realm of the understanding of a preacher, or are there scientists who are authorities in the field of Science who agree with Creation? These are questions which I had to tackle head on before making my final decision that Young Earth Creation Science was a valid understanding to undertake in the area of Science, especially in the realm of Biology. I have prayed over this, and God has allowed this door to be open. We will see where this leads :). Lots of stuff to come!

God bless and shalom to all,

hamashiachagape