 |
Sin, Satan, and Relative Truth |
 |
|
Sin, Satan, and Relative Truth |
|
Baha'i doctrine asserts that evil does not exist as a basic force. It is said to simply be a "nothingness". It is said to be simply the lack of goodness. Baha'is explain that there is no evil inherent in God's creation except for those events which proceed from man's rejection of goodness. Thus when Abdul-Baha states that in creation there is no evil; all is good (Abdul-Baha, Some Answered Questions 215), He means that there is no objective spiritual source of evil. Evil is merely said to be the absence of goodness in the same way that darkness is the absence of light. Evil, in terms of its having a primary spiritual source, is thus depersonalized within the spiritual realm. Another popular Baha'i analogy is to say that cold is but the absence of heat, not the presence of a cold energy, not the influence of a source of coldness. Yet, Baha'i doctrine asserts, one obviously needs effective phrases to describe the absence of heat because it can exert untoward influence on us. Even so, follows this line of reason, evil is said to be simply the absence of good, not really an active force in and of itself for which mankind can be truly found "blameworthy", as Abdul Baha says. This whole line of thought is part of the overall attempt to portray in mankind a neutral, not sinful, basic human nature. If the objective reality of sin can be denied, so too the objective reality of sinful mankind's basic human nature.
However, if we think the idea through to its logical conclusions some major problems arise. Evil is not a passive thing like the arctic cold, being simply the absence of heat, but it is the active force represented in the choices and actions of man himself who has the power to decide, and who can and does misuse the forces of creation over which he was given dominion.
Thus you would have to observe that the analogy portraying evil as simply the absence of good, (like cold is only the absence of heat), is impossibly wrong. Cold indeed is the absence of heat. But it is also the absence of the choice (active force) to be cold. Even authoritative Baha'i writers agree that evil is, in fact, a very active force. Baha'is, for example, while telling us on the one hand that evil is not an active force (that it is a "nothingness"), must contradictorily concede that it is the result of man's "willful" acts, an active force. How much more of an "active force" could we find? Certainly this is not the evidence of a "nothingness".
Good and evil come out of equally reasoned and decided upon spiritual realities that the doer is responsible for choosing between. Rather than support the Baha'i contention that there really isn't such a thing as "evil", these Baha'i models demonstrate that there must be a definitive reality to evil. For they graphically show by comparison the vast difference between mindless dark as the mere absence of light, or unthinking cold as the mere absence of heat, and the infinitely different duality of actively willful good as compared to actively willful evil. The analogies used are not only invalid with respect to supporting the Baha'i doctrine, they accent and highlight the inaccurate fallacy of it.
Thus we can see the impossibility of perceiving evil as a "non" reality, something not spiritually distinct and independently purposeful. The natural intuitive truth we hold of one another's mutual responsibility for the evil we do shows that even Baha'is, in practice, realize that this is a false teaching. It is something that Baha'i doctrine teaches, but not a "truth" that a Baha'i would be willing to live with if someone perpetrated some "non existent" evil quite purposefully upon them. Like the solopsist who says, "nothing is real, all is illusion", (but who is the first to jump out of the way of a speeding bus), Baha'is teach an abstract theory of evil which defines it as merely a non objective absence within an overall reality that is otherwise universally "good", but they hardly could be seen to act according to that teaching. According to some in my ongoing discussion with Baha'is, I, who have stood for the integrity of Christ's Gospel, have been accused by Baha'is of being a very "purposeful" source of willful evil.
But this is only the first step in uncovering a wrong doctrine about evil. It says nothing of where this very "active", choice driven force might emanate from. Does it's origin lie within man alone? (It is certainly expressed by/ through him.) Or does it exist in some eternal spiritual sense outside of man's temporal existence? Certainly we would not say that it comes from God as part of His perfect Creation. Having once concluded that evil is not just a "nothingness", but is actually an identifiable force of sentient choice in active opposition to God's rightoeusness, we must now seek to find out just where this active force comes from.
The first logical conclusion that we must come to lies in an almost true assertion of Baha'i doctrine. The idea that there is no evil inherent in God's creation lies close to truth. With the altering of one word it is a true statement. There WAS no evil inherent in God's creation. Obviously evil exists as part of it now. God and evil, however, are antithetical. As Bahai's often observe, God did not "create" an evil thing in His perfectly conceived Creation. His Creation was good, even perfection. But by that we may not assume that God was not able to allow evil to corrupt His Creation for some high, mysterious, spiritual purpose. The truth that God often works in "mysterious ways" is never more true than with His allowance for evil as a tool to reveal and refine His holy things in us. The story of Job is Scripture's perfect example of this concept.
How can we know white, unless we have black to compare it to? How can we "choose" good, if we have no alternative choice? So, if God's creation was perfect, yet evil is an active force that was allowed to invade it, we must become ever more compelled to discover the source of this very active invading force.
Mankind, as part of God's perfect original creation, cannot be the prime source of this active evil force. For we see that mankind is a part of what was invaded by it, even the greater part. Yet it must have a source.
What we are left with is the inescapable conclusion that there is an active evil force at work in the world, that was not part of God's original Creation of the temporal realm (which includes man), but that manifests itself through man much as God's righteousness can, depending on what man yields himself to. It is an active spiritual force that manifests itself in very tangible ways and by character of its purposefully active reality must have a real and true (not symbolic of just the lack of something) source. "Satan" is the name God's Word gives to this source. In the very active purpose behind it we see that evil's source, Satan, must be a real spiritual being. There is no other possible conclusion.
As always, we should look to Scripture to find out what answers we might find to these questions. Jesus spoke plainly of Satan, not in the symbolic image of a red man with a pitchfork, but as a spiritual character of person and reality. In John 8:44 Jesus said to the Pharisees,
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies he speaks his native language for he is a liar and the father of lies. "
No. There is no silly fork tailed man with horns. Yes. There is an evil spiritual being that opposes God's truth, one who is the father of murder and lies. Jesus used the symbol of "father" for Satan. He also used the term to represent God the "Father". Jesus intentions were clear and not coincidental in using this term. For just as God is the Father of those who love Him, Satan is the father of those who love evil. In reading Christ's words we can no more call Satan a primitive symbol out of step with the times than we can God Himself.
1Peter describes Satan as a roaring lion, prowling for someone to devour. The lion is the symbol, not Satan.
Revelation often speaks of events in the spiritual realm, quite apart from the worldly realm. These events are not mentioned in Genesis, which deals with God's creation of the worldly realm. In Revelation 12:7 we read,
"There was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough and they lost their place in Heaven. The great dragon was hurled down, that ancient serpent called the Devil or Satan who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth and his angels with him."
In Luke 10:18 Jesus said,
"I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven."
In Matthew 12:22 Jesus casts out a demon. He specifically compares Satan and his kingdom to God and His when accused of doing the miracle by the power of Satan. The Pharisees saw no symbolic aspect in the episode and neither did Jesus. The Pharisees had witnessed a miracle displaying God's power over Satan's and denied the true source of that power. The conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees assumes the real existence of Satan and his kingdom even as it does God and His. It assumes Satan to be a spiritual person, not an abstract symbol of separation from God. Again, as in the use of the term "father", we see that Jesus' use of parallel representations for Satan and his kingdom and God and His kingdom leaves no doubt that Satan is to be considered a real spiritual entity.
One Baha'i argument against a literal reality to Satan is that Baha'is hold to monotheism. Monotheism maintains there is but one God. If you have a god of evil called Satan, Baha'is assert, then you have two Gods. If you have anything that can successfully defy God's will, they say, then you have taken away God's attribute as 'the All-Powerful' and He is no longer God.
In the first place, we can easily observe that although Baha'i religion may be monotheistic, many of the Eastern religions that they would presume to incorporate into the Baha'i pan-religious melting pot are not. Many are polytheistic from their earliest expressions. Baha'i theology often tries to justify such inconsistencies in its principle of regressive corruption of all religions (except Baha'i religion of course). They would say that such Eastern polytheistic religions have only arisen out of corruption of some original "manifestation's" teachings. Yet when we discover how they support such ideas we find that they do so by reinterpreting the earliest expressions of the religion in question by way of that symbolizing/ redefining filter of Baha'i rationalization that so subjectively redefines the original religious founder's teachings that it distorts the original intentions of that teaching as much, if not more than, any perversion or corruption we might otherwise legitimately discover. Polytheism is a definitive belief in many religions as is reincarnation. To deny the tangible reality of those real and major spiritual differences in an attempt to build non existent unity amongst world religions is religious rationalizing against truth. Yes. Baha'i religion is monotheistic. Like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, it comes out of a Semitic tradition. To presume to superimpose that Western based outlook upon Indo European religions that do not come out of that tradition, saying that they have always REALLY had at the heart of their belief system Semitic based spiritual doctrines, even though they don't seem to now, is intellectual and spiritual dishonesty. It is what one might well call religiocentric, in the extreme.
In the second place, let us be certain we understand that Scripture NEVER portrayed Satan as an eternal, uncreated "God" in any way the same as the truly monotheistic triune God. Scripture portrays Satan as a being created by God and thus infinitely beneath His omnipotence. Baha'i theology would have us believe that any literal belief in a non symbolic reality to Satan amounts to some kind of polytheism. This argument either comes out of a mind set that chooses to ignore the obvious Scriptural difference in its rationalizing, or is woefully ignorant of Scripture's portrayal and defining descriptions of who Satan is.
Thirdly, it is wrong to say, as this Baha'i argument does, that, " If you have anything that can successfully defy God's will, then you have taken away God's attribute 'the All-Powerful' and He is no longer God." The whole story of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, is the story of a God who "ALLOWS" us to defy Him, mankind often being described as a "stiff necked people". The argument assumes that if anything can defy God's Will that God has lost control, has lost his "attribute" as "the all Powerful". In assuming that God may not ALLOW rebellion, it completely misses the whole thread of defining spiritual qualities concerning God that are characterized by long suffering, patience and compassion. Did Jesus not say to Pilot that He could have legions of angels at His disposal if He so desired? Yet He restrained the force of His Will. Why? Because, in some mysterious way, we must be allowed to exercise free will if we are to grow closer to becoming the beings God wants us to become. "Love" cannot be realized through robotic creatures forced to obey by divine Will. This is a most reasonable and obvious conclusion upon reflection. And so, the idea that no force could defy God's Will without it somehow revealing a lack of omnipotence on God's part must be wrong. Otherwise we could have no possibility of choosing anything by free will, and thus, real love (the voluntary giving of oneself out of free will) would be impossible. Realizing that God loved us "while we were yet still sinners" who were well able to actively defy Him, lends a greater glory to Him, not a lesser one. For He models and demonstrates the highest attributes of righteousness in His faithful and selfless love for us in the face of our rebellion. If Jesus said for us to love our enemies, God Himself demonstrated the highest expression of it through Christ's death at the hands of His enemies. Yet if this Baha'i argument against the reality of Satan were true, in that there can be no true rebellion against God's Will, then God's compassionate expression would not only have been meaningless, it would have been impossible. For how can one be an enemy if one cannot rebel? And thus, who can have love for an enemy that cannot even exist?
Another Baha'i doctrine concerning good and evil is that it changes. The idea that truth is relative is another Baha'i doctrine about evil and truth that is anti biblical.
A typical Baha'i example argues that the Gospel says that a, "slave should be subservient to his master as his master should be subservient to God". The Baha'i reasoning concludes that to bring back slavery and justify it because the Bible says so would be an obviously unacceptable and immoral act. Divine laws are thus argued to be subject to abrogation by later, more advanced concepts of religious truth. Baha'i teaching asserts in a similar example that Jesus changed the laws of Moses. It argues that if divine laws were not mutable, and Moses had a divine revelation, then why wouldn't we just stick to his words?
But this argument wrongly implies that Scripture ever condoned slavery. What Scripture does do is to show us that evil circumstances must be dealt with in non evil ways. As slavery was part of the unchangeable world system of that day, Scripture taught slaves how to live honorably with God within those adverse circumstances.The passage is thus not teaching the acceptability of slavery. It is however establishing universal groundrules for living righteously within an unrighteous and often oppressive world. Did Jesus condone oppressive taxes when he said to "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's". No. But He showed man that there is a higher priority in always "giving to God what is God's". Scripture cannot be made to seem to suggest that Jesus honored the oppressive rule of the Roman yoke around the throat of His homeland. But in the world evil circumstances must be met with a godly attitude that may well have to bear injustice. Thus the Gospel obviously does not suggest the bringing back of slavery or the condoning of it in biblical times. Such a definitive observation is fatal to the argument that assumes that it does so in an invalid attempt to prove a point about the Baha'i doctrine of relative truth. In Jesus' comments about paying taxes to Caesar, or His words to Peter when Peter discovered his coat had been stolen, (If a thief takes your coat, give him your shirt as well), the message is one of personal spiritual priority. We are to set our eyes on heavenly things beyond this mortal world and often be willing to give up justice here in thanks for God's mercy that will allow us into His Kingdom there. Jesus wasn't condoning usurious taxes or stealing. Paul wasn't condoning slavery. They are teaching us how to behave when faced with those evils.
Furthermore, just what is it supposed to be, exactly, that those in Christ's time could not understand that would allow for "new eternal truths"? 1 Corinthians 10:13 points out that, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to Man." Moses was given the Ten Commandments and there is not one mystery among them for men from any age. Love of God and fellow man, selfless generosity have always been moral truths. Murder, lying, stealing have always been evil.These are not teachings that must be "unsealed" before we can understand what they would have us do. They are not the primitive mores of an ancient people that can be improved upon. They have always been clearly understandable and remain today as solid in their absolute objective moral message as they did thousands of years ago. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17; "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." According to Jesus the "Law" does not change.
On the other hand, Baha'u'llah tells us that the "Law" is relative and depends on the "level of advancement" of a given people. In Shoghi Effendi's Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, Baha'u'llah tells us; "No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy."
..."Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements."
But if every age "hath its own problem" (circumstances change), we must recognize that the spiritual dynamics that underlie them do not. There are no "new" moral principles. Fidelity to one's oath is an eternal spiritual moral principle for humans in the world. Greed has always been a recognizable spiritual evil. Thus we see that, contrary to Baha'u'llah's telling us that the ills of mankind change over time, The "Law" of moral principles of good and evil do not change along the continuum of human history. "Thou shalt not lie" has no different spiritual meaning today than it ever did. These truths are constant and eternal. That no one can fulfill them to God's standard of perfection is also universally perceivable to all. So too is the "remedy", according to Scripture. In contradiction to Baha'u'llah's telling us that, "The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require.", Christ's Messianic Sacrifice and literal Resurrection is portrayed in Scripture to be the universal and singular cure for that universal and unchanging sickness, man's hopelessly sinful nature. As the sickness is unchanging so too is the cure. According to Scripture's intended Message, the singular provision for mankind's universal sin sickness is the omnipresent Messianic Sacrifice of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
When we realize, as Scripture reveals, that these moral truths of conduct are not relative, but clearly understandable and always have been, we must go back and wonder why then does Baha'u'llah really want to change so radically the meaning behind Scripture with his "unsealing"? It reveals the true fact that the Bible relays to us things far more important than just the Law of good and bad behavior. According to the Bible, the prime purpose of that Law given was not to establish a standard that we could really hope to ascend to and keep by human effort, but was to reveal in us our sin, our weakness in contrast to the Law's perfection. Thus is revealed our universal and desperate need for Jesus' singular act of intercessory Salvation. But this line of thought, these exclusive truths, would interfere with the theory of a pan-world Baha'i religion and so must be "unsealed" so that by symbolism their universally asserted and singular exclusivity can be eliminated. This emphasis on "unsealing Scripture's true meaning" contradicts the Baha'i contention that religion is primarily a system of teaching us how to behave. In the fact that the Law has always been clearly understandable we can see that there is an ulterior motive in "unsealing" the Bible.
The goal is to create from the Bible a different Gospel and an altered Christ fashioned to fit the Baha'i pan-world religion theory. It is a redefining that must relegate Christ to a position common with other religious leaders and subservient to Baha'u'llah's allegedly "advanced" revelation (which he says "hath never before appeared"). In so doing, it attempts to eliminate Jesus' exclusive station as God the Son, and, by association, the power and authority of His messianic Sacrifice and Resurrection. His biblical and overall religious preeminence is stripped from Him leaving a well meaning teacher who carries no authority to save us by His Sacrifice from our flawed and sinful nature. What is left of Jesus after the unsealing of Baha'u'llah is a Christ for whom the power of the cross is emptied; one who functionally died for nothing as far as our harboring any hope that His sacrifice could have a directly effecatious and absolute impact on our own personal spiritual destiny. But it is a Christ who then fits neatly into the common gallery of other "Messengers", making no special claims that would distinguish Him as any more important than any other religious leader. It is a false Christ whose "dispensation" is said to be the passe' message of a bygone and primitive spiritual age and people.
The progression of doctrines that lead to Baha'u'llah's taking license to present humanity with an allegedly "advanced" revelation must begin by denying the universal constancy of the "Law" of spiritual morality. If the Law changes over time, then the singular cure for it can also be denied it's associated exclusiveness. But if, as Jesus tells us, the Law is unchanging, then by comparison we can see that mankind's sickness has always been the same sickness, and thus the error in Baha'u'llah's rationale that,
..."Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require."
The spiritual problems are the same, not different. So too the cure. Praise Jesus Christ of Nazareth who, as a perfect living Sacrifice, paves the way for all who will be saved, His being truly the firstborn from the dead to eternal Life.