Theory and Development

The topic of my master’s thesis was on the spatial accessibility of healthy and affordable food in Bernalillo County. I collected a broad range of data to perform three types of analysis: physical proximity; personal mobility; and human perception. The first type of analysis required using a network analysis to find the median nearest network distance by census block group to three types of geo-coded food retail locations. The second type of analysis required the creation of a personal mobility index by census block group using five census indicators. The final type of analysis required the identification of block group clusters with different combinations of the prior two accessibility metrics, and then sending out surveys to these areas to see how perceptions of food accessibility matched up with the quantitative indicators. What I found was that there are clearly some areas which would fit the description of a “food desert”, or areas where poor accessibility adversely affects diet above and beyond cultural norms and income.

It was quite an effort and I am proud of it, but I wonder what the next step would be. My research will likely sit in the UNM library and provide nothing towards the advancement of humanity. Thinking about the following Baha'i quote, it makes me wonder how this, and other academic knowledge can be made useful.

"5. O SON OF DUST!
Verily I say unto thee: Of all men the most negligent is he that disputeth idly and seeketh to advance himself over his brother. Say, O brethren! Let deeds, not words, be your adorning."

According to the predominant models of development, the next logical step would be a discussion of what, if any, actions should be taken by the government or outside observers to FIX the problem. Clearly businesses could use this information to better locate areas lacking a sufficient variety of healthy and affordable food. Often the market fails in this regard, especially in urban areas with poor minority populations. This is where non-profits could jump in and use this information to promote affordable subsidized produce or promote urban gardens.

Another model of development, espoused by educators such as the late Paulo Freire, planners such as Bent Flyberg, development organizations such as FUNDAEC, and the Baha'i Faith, focuses on developing human capacity through consultation, action, and reflection within a community. In my example, this process would probably start with directed consultations on the perceptions of food and nutrition in general. My study area has had a long tradition of local agriculture which has since faded out as a source of livelihood. Many of the people I surveyed expressed a desire to consume more fresh produce, but face serious time constraints to merely purchase the food, let alone grow it. The most accessible food is often found at gas stations or mini-marts which contain mainly packaged food. Assuming that people decide that they want to eat healthier and promote local agriculture, the next step would be for community members consult, possibly in collaboration with scientists and planners, about the human and natural resources in the community, and how these resources could be mobilized to promote food awareness, start their own business and cooperatives, attract outside business into their area, etc. Finally, every few months or so, community members would reflect on what has been learned and develop a more coherent plan of action.

It is my view that social and economic development on a large scale is not possible without a parallel process of spiritual development. The Baha'i framework for action enshrined in the institute process provides an early template on how spirituality can inform this new mode of learning.

An East African Federation?

An East African monetary union seems like a good idea. It might be instrumentatal to greater regional stability and strong negotiating clout with trading partners. On the whole I am a fan of monetary integration. I think the European experiment has been successful. A few years ago I presented a paper at the WSSA conference making a case for the economic integration of Turkey into the EMU

Cocorosie

I really love this group. Weird, androgenous, intimate, vulnerable, groundbreaking, they all describe Cocorosie

Unlocking the Power of Jr Youth

The Fine Line Between Unity and Co-Dependence

Over the last few years I have reached out to a few different people interested in becoming members of the Baha'i Faith. While I do what I can to support them emotionally and spiritually, oftentimes they come to expect too much and become hurt when I can't be there for them. I try and encourage them to pray and establish a spiritual connection with God. I also do what I can to get them involved in community life. But sometimes that isn't enough, their religious connection is dependent on their connection to me, and there is only so much I can do. I cannot take that pressure, and I shouldn't have to.

So my question is, where is the line between promoting unity through developing friendships, and becoming co-dependent upon each other for spiritual sustenance? Does unity mean that everybody will be best friends with everybody else? If not, then how do we avoid forming cliques and fragmenting according into our most comfortable groups? Is there a way to have a strong group of close friends, but still interact and be unified with everybody in a challenging and meaningful way?

I am eager to hear your thoughts on these questions.

Omnes Unum

Jake has a blog which is exciting because he is a really smart guy. Check out his post "Why Should We Really Care About Poverty"

Baha'i Coherence

My full bloggy intention right now is to get help get the collaborative Baha'i blog, "Baha'i Coherence" off the ground. I am really interested in the general development of a conceptual Baha'i framework in all areas of thought and application. I also want to help teach the Baha'i Faith and show the world a sampling of contemporary Baha'i thought. I have been thinking about the format quite a bit. This is what I came up with.

Baha'i Coherence - An Exploration of Our Conceptual Territory

"This is a collaborative space for Baha'is to submit essays, reflections, or creative works about all things related to the world in which we find ourselves. There are no length requirements; the format is flexible and can change as people see fit. Please note that these essays represent the current views of the contributors, and do not represent an official Baha'i perspective."

I am really hoping that it can be a spot that represents a broad range of Baha'i voices. At first I was thinking the format would be restricted to semi-formal essays. But that is too restricting. If the intention is to explore the world conceptually, then more forms, such as discussions, creative pieces, and reflections should also be included.

The Implications of Independent Investigation of Truth

Greg has posted two essays on Baha'i Coherence about the principle of "independent investigation of truth", and its relationship to justice and the divine plan. Highly worth your time. Do check them out.

Reflections on the Baha'i Institute Process

I was engaged in the discussion forum "Planet Baha'i and we were talking about the institute process. There seems to be strong feelings on both sides as to its value. Here were some of my thoughts mostly in response to others...in no particular order.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When I learned about the institute process, it was like a breath of fresh air to me. When me and others (mostly in my age group) started promoting this in our community, we found stiff resistance with the LSA and most elders of the community. I couldn't understand, this was direct guidance from the UHJ, and it made so much sense to me. Now the LSA is fully on board and are magnificent. Still though many in our community feel alienated by the process. We need to do a better job helping people find their unique path of service.

I had always thought of future Baha'i expansion and influence as something magical, nothing that I could relate to my own observations of the Baha'i community. But then there was this process which seemed to (and still does) provide the links between now and and world transformation. Even now, I see the steps that will get us there, and they require a lot of work and focus, but they aren't supernatural, they are very practical. Moreover, they draw upon some of the most innovative approaches to education and experiential, phronetic, and context dependent community development, learning, and capacity building.

I too found Ruhi 1 to be rudimentary the first time I did it. But with a mix of people, especially those hearing the teachings for the first time, it is often very profound and excessively challenging. Even for deepened Baha’is, it is easy to have read that "Truthfulness the foundation of all human virtues", but to actually discuss the real life implications is useful for everybody, especially when there is the clash of opinion and conceptual framework. Then there are the service components, which also seems easy. But if we do them completely, fully accounting for the injunctions like the one I mentioned, or "Let your heart burn with loving kindness for all who may cross your path", it gets to be a lot more challenging.

It is also important to remember that Ruhi came from cycles and cycles of systematic learning, action, and reflection. This is the same thing we are doing now in our cycles of growth. And who knows, the materials of the future might come from the very experiences we are having now. We just needed to get the process jump-started, which required a pre-designed institute process. The US has had a lot of catching up to do, but we will get there, and when we do we will lead the world spiritually. All it takes is some faith and determination.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that we are in a learning process and need to be patient with each other. The institute was created for a good reason, there needed to be some cohesion in our efforts that seemed lost in the 80's and 90's. On the other hand some people might be overzealous in their interpretation of the guidance, and demand that everybody fall into narrow categories of service. I heard a great talk on my Pilgrimage by a House member. He was saying that the core activities right now will not be the core activities in the future. The point is to make them so much a part of our identity that they become second nature, kind of like Feast and the Holy Days. When they do become part of the fabric, then we will be ready to engage in more creative and complex acts of service in the community. But, we need to crawl and walk before we can run. Sometimes obedience is the best medicine, even if it doesn't make sense. Just a personal reflection from somebody in their mid 20's. The effects of the institute process for me have been amazing. So many people have joined the faith in our community through both direct teaching and the Ruhi process. The people who are coming in are not just those who are extremely interested to begin with, but those who feel their life changing through a process of true investigation and relationship building. I think we have a lot of baggage as a community and a lot of cultural norms that will be upended as new people with different backgrounds and baggage come in. It is the job of the Area Teaching Committee, Auxiliary Board Member, LSA, etc to worry about the large scale trend in the community. For the rest of us, we can carve out a niche that is meaningful to us. With a little creativity, we can also align it with the goals of the 5 year plan. In my community (Albuquerque, NM) there is also an ongoing dialogue as to the nature of the five year plan, some people look to apply it with 20 degree clarity and others are looking backwards, hearkening to the old days. I have found the most success cultivating small scale friendships and discussion groups. For example, we have a study circle that started with 3 long time Baha’is, two brand new Baha’i’s, and 3 seekers. At the beginning the facilitator made it clear that the first and foremost intention was to create (many didn't know each other) and strengthen relationships. Everybody has a strikingly different temperament and conceptual vantage point. Sure we followed Ruhi protocol for the most part, but that was really just one of the means by which we explored spiritual AND profane subjects that were interesting to us, which was itself just a means by which we became very good friends and generated small scale cultural space Ideally, the Institute process is supposed to be a process of reflection/action/reflection where cultural and practical knowledge is generated in a systematic manner. This did occur in Columbia, and Ruhi was the result, but I see where you are coming from, that was their process, not ours, we are being told to use it as a tool to jump start coherent development. Just my opinion, but Ruhi, with all its strengths and flaws, is more important for the process than the content. Once the process becomes second nature to us, then we can better insert our own cultural dynamism and produce our own content must stronger than before. I think you are saying that content is important too. No? Well okay, but it is the process of content (knowledge) generation that is the most exciting. It requires all the fruits of previous knowledge, and gets blended up into experiential learning, which is very bottom up (Ruhi, a bottom up fruit resulting in top down application is meant as a jump start of our own engine of phronesis). Of course Ruhi is also valuable as a tool by which we systematically deepen large numbers of folks in the writings, and in each other. So yes content is important too. I hear a lot from baby-boomers that things were so much more vibrant in the 70's and 80's. That is my parent’s generation, and growing up with two artists has given me a great appreciation for that time in American history. On the other hand, I and a lot of others in my age group also see a lot of missed opportunities. It seems to be that vibrancy overpowered practicality and sustainability. A lot of people entered the faith because it was cool, but not many stayed because there was no support infrastructure, there was no systematic way to deepen the new believers in a context of service. That is why young people my age (in their 20's) are kind of frustrated with our parent’s generation more generally. It feels as if they are always reminding us how much cooler things were, yet we can't see much to show for it now. We want something that is dynamic, but also something that is coherent and sustainable, something that lasts. Yeah, I think the LSA’s role is changing quickly. Right now it might seem as if it is sitting in the background, but soon I believe a more exalted form will emerge out of the fog. One thing they have that the appointed cluster bodies don't have nearly as much is authority, experience, and the trust of the community. This is extremely important, especially as vast numbers of people enter the faith with vast quantities of baggage. The institute is the engine of growth, but the LSA are the bolts that hold the car together.

Expanding on Natural Selection

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/20682?in=00:00&out=60:20

Another good bloggingheads with Robert Wright. This is an interesting quote:

"Natural selection did not design the brain to perceive ultimate reality or ultimate truths or even very large truths really...it designed the brain to get genes into the next generation and that involved focusing on eating, having sex, gaining social status....a fairly mundane set of tasks there is no reason to think ordinary consciousness is anything like an objective or profound view of reality in all its depths, and there is reason to think we are generally prevented from attaining any depth or true objectivity so even if any given mediation technique or drug or whatever does a strictly physical thing to your brain that doesn't mean it is moving your awareness closer to what the objective truth is."

So then can we expand our evolutionary capacity consciously? Can we promote spiritual virtues intentionally, even if they aren't absolutely necessary for survival? Isn't this what religion does. What about a religion that doesn't contain all the dogmatic baggage, is progressive in nature, and is employing a systematic process of community learning and action for the realization of universal unity and diversity? That religion is the Baha'i Faith.

The Frustration Materialist Have With Imprecise Spiritual Language

It is refreshing to hear a discussion of sincere agnostics discuss the prospects of spirituality and God in light of a scientific orientation. If you have the time definitely watch it:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/20509?in=00:00&out=55:46





I think for Baha'i's who start with a spiritual orientation, it is easy to accept science as a welcome complement. We have certain assumptions that make them easily compatible.


I am one of those people. I have always had an intuitive feeling about spirituality; it has always seemed second nature. So then, the language I used is couched in the assumption of spiritual reality, even in a scientific discussion.


I realize more now that many people do not contain any such intuition naturally. Nothing is assumed, and for them discussing spirituality with a believer of any religion can be very frustrating, because the language is different. The word "spirituality" is frustrating because it contains a metaphysical assumption, even before the discussion starts. To them "spirituality" is just a fancy word for moral inspiration predicated upon a belief in eternal purpose and accountability, the predisposition of which can be explained by biological and cultural evolution. How much more frustrating for somebody like a Baha'i to claim harmony of science and religion so easily, while using sloppy and imprecise language to justify it.


Part of the Baha'i belief in "progressive revelation" is that we must always reinterpret and refine our beliefs based upon evolving evolutionary capacity and scientific development. It is a pursuit that I hope to keep exploring and writing about in more detail. That is, wiping away the baggage of popular interpretation of the Baha'i writings, and understanding them again in a more detached and analytical manner. Of course this aproach has its limits; subjectivity and experience is indespensible to making any logical value judgement. And really in the end it is a matter of faith either for or against belief. In any case, I believe that faith in its true form, is the opposite of delusion.

You

I had stopped the car and fallen into the backroad mud I couldn't get clean. Cars approached but I didn't care I could no longer see. I couldn't repent any more you. The first to excorsize my grief, permit catharsis, I wanted so much for you to understand. That one night when you recited the land of Ta, you could see me through your anger the tortured machination. By morning it could've hardly mattered and you were being driven. You said my eyes were as cold as stone. They were only strong my feet were wobbly.

St. Paul the CEO of brand Jesus? And Other Adventures in Accidental Morality

Wright, an agnostic evolutionary biologist argues that the brotherly love of the Bible was a social revolution arising from utilitarian impulses.


This is a common argument among evolutionary biologists, but Wright puts an interesting spin on it while trying to sell his theory to the religiously inclined

"And if history naturally produces moral insight—however mundane the machinery that mediates its articulation—then maybe some overarching purpose is built into the human endeavor after all."

It goes on to view St. Paul's preaching in this light.

"Why all the kin talk? Because Paul wasn’t satisfied to just have a congregation in Corinth; he wanted to set up franchises—congregations of Jesus followers—in cities across the Roman Empire. These imperial aspirations, it turns out, infused Paul’s preaching with an emphasis on brotherly love that it might never have acquired had Paul been content to run a single mom-and-pop store"

I think he overreaches in his argument that it wasn't so much Jesus that preached brotherly love, but Paul and other followers who taught it in order to be more successful with the Jesus franchise. It also belittles Paul's profound religious inspiration that the Jewish identity of distinctiveness was not as important as the new Christ spirit which made everbody equal and the community better because of their diversity.

The essay eventually leads to his final argument that in today's world, pragmatism should convince people of all faiths to embrace a sense of universal brotherhood.

"For all three Abrahamic faiths, then, tolerance and even amity across ethnic and national bounds have a way of emerging as a product of utility; when you can do well by doing good, doing good can acquire a scriptural foundation. This flexibility is heartening for those who believe that, in a highly globalized and interdependent world, the vast majority of people in all three Abrahamic faiths have more to gain through peaceful coexistence and cooperation than through intolerance and violence. If ancient Abrahamics could pen laudable scriptures that were in their enlightened self-interest, then maybe modern Abrahamics can choose to emphasize those same scriptures when it’s in their interest.

And if some people find it dispiriting that moral good should emerge from self-interest, maybe they should think again. At least, the Abrahamics among them should think again. The Hebrew Bible, considered a holy text by all three Abrahamic faiths, sees the pragmatic value of virtue as itself part of divine design."

While I agree with the ends, again, I think it is shallow to present this case as an appeal to more narrow self interests. Humans have the capacity to not just tolerate, but actively embrace those of a different background. I am not here to argue whether these religions were divinely inspired, a result of psychological and social need, or both. But it does seem to me, based upon his argument, that if the current great religions cannot get out of their shell and embrace universal unity in diversity, then either a new pragmatic moral ethos, or a new more progresssive revelation is needed. I believe that they both already exist in a highly coherant framework within the Baha'i Faith.

Jesus the Alien

This is an interesting article about Christian scientists trying to tackle the multiverse theory. Here is my favorite paragraph:

Robin Collins, a professor of philosophy at Pennsylvania’s Messiah College who also presented at the Wheaton conference, focuses much of his work on the theological opportunities multiverse theories present for the uniqueness of our universe. He imagines far-flung civilizations in the multiverse all in need of salvation and a multiplicity of Christs who would change forms to meet each universe’s redemptive needs. “If you had Klingons somewhere  — of course a very fallen race, as we know from Star Trek,” Collins adds, “God takes up their nature, and there’s a Klingon version of the Son.” Collins has also argued that multiverse models are consistent with god’s creative capacities. “If you start thinking about god as infinitely creative,” he says, “it would be totally unexpected for god to just create us.”

If they are willing to go there then a new question arises. If Christ can take different forms in different places at different times to save all the heathen aliens, then why can't he do the same thing on earth?

Progressive revelation anybody?

A Baha'i's Interpretation of "Original Sin"

The concept of original sin has been the lynchpin of Christian theology for centuries. Many Christians interpret the book of Genesis, when Adam ate of the apple from the tree of good and evil, as the downfall of man. It gives their faith in the historical Jesus as the only means by which people can be redeemed of the sin of Adam and be born again of Christ. While giving Christians assurances of their faith, it has turned other people off. Many find it inconsolable that a baby is born sinful and guilty and will be consigned to hell if it dies before being baptized, inconsolable that everybody before the time of Jesus was consigned to hell, inconsolable that everybody who is raised in an isolated area without hearing about Jesus is consigned to hell. For many, including myself, these are reprehensible and unscientific interpretations.

Baha’i’s take the opposite view of human nature. We believe that humans are inherently noble, “A mine rich in gems of inestimable value”. We can choose to polish these gems and express our true nature, or we can ignore our true selves and fall into great degradation. Yet Baha’i’s also claim to believe in the Bible; for us there is a deeper meaning to the biblical idea of original sin.

Paul the apostle speaks quite extensively on the topic of original sin, especially in the book of Romans. The story of Adam and Eve was well known from the Book of Genesis. Paul took it to mean that the sin of Adam was imputed to all men, regardless of their relative morality. The Jewish law was a form of death, an albatross that could not be extricated by human will alone.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. ..For if by the transgression of the one, death reined through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will rein in the life through the One, Jesus Christ." Romans 5:12-17

According to Paul’s story, we were recreated in the likeness of Christ through the mercy which required the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. This was the meaning of Jesus when he said claimed to fulfill the Law in its entirety.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18

Through his sacrifice we were saved, not through our own merits, but through the grace of God. We were freed from the law which kept us under the weight of sin, and death.

"Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." Romans 7: 4-6

On the surface, these teachings suggest a very linear progression from the fall of Adam, to the naïve attempt by Abraham and Moses to redeem humanity through the Law, to the final redemption via the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. There are some obvious logical problems with this interpretation, not the least contained within the Bible itself. Consider the following story told by Jesus.

“Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during you life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, in order that those who wish to come over from here to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, Father, that you send him to my father’s house-for I have five brothers-that he may warn them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.’” Luke 16:22-31

It is clear from this passage that before the time of Jesus, there was already a distinction between Hades (Hell), the place where the rich man was consigned, and a heavenly place where Lazarus was consigned.

So how do we make sense of the contradictory ideas that salvation is reliant on a specific event in history, and this account of salvation well before the time of Jesus? Most Christians placed a heavy emphasis on the historical Jesus, even though Jesus stated that The Christ has been around for eternity.

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad”. The Jews therefore said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am”. John 8:56-58

This passage clearly establishes Christ as an eternal spiritual presence. One that was around long before Jesus’s body was ever born into the world. His life, which was evident in the original Word, was also the light of men from the very beginning.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." John 1: 1-5

If we are to understand the description of God as spirit and love…

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:24

"The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:1

...then it makes sense to view the Christ in much the same manner.

So then there must be a way to understand the historical nature and redeeming act of Jesus in the context of the eternal nature of Christ and spirit? Consider the explanation given by Baha’u’llah on the nature of the prophets and manifestations of God.

"…It is clear and evident to thee that all the Prophets are the Temples of the Cause of God, Who have appeared clothed in divers attire. If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold Them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith. Such is the unity of those Essences of Being, those Luminaries of infinite and immeasurable splendor! Wherefore, should one of these Manifestations of Holiness proclaim saying: “I am the return of all the Prophets,” He, verily, speaketh the truth. In like manner, in every subsequent Revelation, the return of the former Revelation is a fact, the truth of which is firmly established….
The other station is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation, and to the limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a definite mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation. Even as He saith: “Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others. To some God hath spoken, some He hath raised and exalted. And to Jesus, Son of Mary, We gave manifest signs, and We strengthened Him with the Holy Spirit.”
It is because of this difference in their station and mission that the words and utterances flowing from these Well Springs of Divine knowledge appear to diverge and differ. Otherwise, in the eyes of them that are initiated into the mysteries of Divine wisdom, all their utterances are, in reality, but the expressions of one Truth. As most of the people have failed to appreciate those stations to which We have referred, they, therefore, feel perplexed and dismayed at the varying utterances pronounced by Manifestations that are essentially one and the same..." Gleanings XXII

Baha’i’s believe in the idea of progressive revelation which asserts that there is only one religion which has been refreshed and expanded upon throughout history. While the core spiritual message has always been the same, its conceptual framework and the social laws have differed according to the needs of people at their stage of evolution. Jesus himself spoke of progressive revelation using the parable of the wineskins.

"No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the will not match the old.
And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined.
But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins." - Luke 5:36-3

For progressive revelation to be credible from a biblical point of view, then there must be a deeper meaning to the concept of original sin than has commonly been interpreted. Investigating this deeper meaning, we must first consider the meaning of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection from the dead as laid out at the end of each Gospel. Paul gives us a useful place to start.

"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him." Romans 6: 4-9

What does it mean to die with Christ in order to live with him? Paul is constructive in this train of thought. He clearly distinguishes between the heavenly body and the earthly body.

"But someone will say, how are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come? You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own...There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another." 1 Corinthians 15:35-40

The earthly body must be “united with Him in the likeness of His death”, so that the spiritual body can be raised “in the likeness of His resurrection”.

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body, if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” 1 Corinthians 15:42-44

Clearly the physical body of Jesus was not raised as the Gospels seem to suggest and as many Christians believe, but instead his spiritual body manifested in the early Christian community.

"So we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one of another." Romans 12:5

So who was Adam in this story? According to Paul, Adam represents the human’s physical nature, the part that must be sown. Christ represents the spiritual nature, the part the must be resurrected.

"The first Man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam(Christ) became a life-giving spirit. However the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven, heavenly. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. And just as we have born the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1Corinthians 15:35-50

It is easy to ask at this point, if original sin has a spiritual meaning instead of a literal one, why wasn’t the Bible more clear about that? Jesus was clear that his message at the time could only be delivered according to the capacity of the people to comprehend it. That is why he spoke in parables, in a figurative language.

"Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world." (Psa 78:2) Mat 13:34-35

He also promised to speak much more clearly the next time around.

"These things I have spoken to you in a figurative language; an hour is coming when I will speak no more to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the father." John 16:25

Paul also alluded to this, claiming that spiritual things cannot be understood using a natural (or literal) mindset.

"For to us God revealed them through the spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of a man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of god; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." 1 Corinthians 2:10-14

Today we are capable of thinking much more complex and abstract thoughts than the people thousands of years ago. Science has progressed to a point that the old ways of viewing the universe no longer apply. If Jesus had to speak in parables for people to understand, imagine how much more figurative the language must have been in Old Testament times for people to understand. This is why there are so many impossible stories in the Old Testament. It was useful for people at that time to take the creation story, or the story of Noah’s Ark literally, because the spiritual teaching could not be understood any other way. In this day, we are ready to be told “plainly of the father”.

Abdu’l Baha, the son of Baha’u’llah and the appointed interpreter of his writings, gives a very useful explanation of the meaning of Adam and Eve.
It is worth reading in its entirety

Atheist Discussion Commentary - Part 1

Poking around on utube, I found this fascinating discussion between 4 of the most outspoken atheists out there today: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. I have watched two parts out of the twelve so far and have decided to start a six part series of my own, linking to two clips at a time and throwing out stream of consciousness thoughts on what I watch.

Here are the first two clips.

Discussion - Part 1
Discussion - Part 2

So far most of what they say I agree with, except of course the atheism part. I have been a little disappointed by the fact that they haven't differentiated between rational faith and irrational faith. (for example accepting scientific empiricism vs. believing in a 6000 year old earth) I was happy in the beginning of the second clip when Harris allowed for the reality and language of supernatural experiences, if not supernatural reality itself. I was also appreciative of Hitchens (who I think in general to be an incredible charismatic and profoundly intelligent writer) disagree with Dennett that religious people claim not to doubt their faith, giving a few examples. Then Dawkins makes an unfair assertion in my view that people of faith pray over and over to brainwash themselves out of doubt. We pray because it invokes the experience of self sacrifice and oneness with our reality. We pray because we want to detach ourselves from our own ego and open up to love and compassion in our lives. I don't pray because I want to be cured of doubt. It would scare me if I had absolutely no doubt.

Of course I doubt; there is no way to prove that I am praying to anything other than the floor and ceiling. But I feel that it is even harder to prove that something (the universe) came from nothing. Human consciousness has evolved the capacity for self reflection, scientific inquiry, and the conscious development of all virtues. It seems to me unlikely that this consciousness born out of some form in some galaxy was an accident. It seems to me likely that the universe itself is moving towards a greater perfection, one that will spawn in our day and age the unity of humankind. It is interesting to think of how the cells in a human body unite to form a human consciousness. What new meta consciousness will be created when humankind unites?

The Baha'i Faith and Bible Code

Bryan's Post, Bible Code, is a very interesting exploration on hidden meanings within the Bible. It makes a lot of connections that I had not considered and has humbled me (again) to the countless layers within these holy texts.

The Baha'i Faith and Community Development

Check out this excellent essay on the nature of Baha'i community development.

The Baha'i Faith and Politics

We are told in school and by the media that our democratic politics are triumphant, a model to be emulated by the rest of the world. It does have many qualities, but why does the whole process seem so banal? Check out Bryan's new post Politics and Change. Here is a sampler:


"That Baha'is entirely reject these bastions of Western democracy -- the campaign, the candidate, etc. -- is the subject of some confusion from the general public. How could a system work without the soul-grinding competition of adversaries? Our current politics are based on opposition and the only alternative seems to be dictatorship. Within that question lies the key: the Baha'i system is fundamentally different, based on cooperation. The forces current in the world are disintegrating, while the Baha'i system is integrating."

First Televised Interview

The first televised interview that Barack Obama has had as president is with Al-Arabiya, an Arab news organization out of Dubai. It is cathartic to finally hear an engaging and fair minded approach to the Middle East coming from the leadership of the United States. It is an important step, it seems, in reconciling the "dissension and strife, contention, estrangement and apathy, among the loved ones of God."

A few different parts stuck out for me, this one in particular where he acknowledges the part of his Muslim Anscestory:

"I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries ... the largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith – and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers – regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams."

A Baha'i and an Athiest Discuss Evolution

Over the last few days I have been involved in a discussion of the Baha'i view of evolution and spirituality with an self proclaimed athiest. It was prompted by a comment he made on Bryans post Genesis, Evolution, and Aliens. He has been kind of confrontational and I wavered on weather to engage him. I am glad I have because it has caused me to question my own beliefs in a productive way. Here is the dialogue so far. If you have something to contribute to this discussion, you should follow the link and make a comment. I will continue to repost this with any new comments made, so join in on the discussion!



Jason said...
This is a great post Bryan! I hadn't read that last quote by Abdu'l Baha in "Divine Philosophy", although it makes a lot of sense and is an exciting thought. If only we could get some fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic Darwinian's locked in a room together and have them read and discuss this until they recognized Baha'u'llah
September 1, 2008 9:41 AM


Atheist said...
WOW, guys!!! we are in the 21st century and you still dont accept the evolution and darwin???? WOWW
January 12, 2009 1:50 PM


Jason said...
Actually, the Baha'is believe in the harmony of science and religion. This includes the theories of Darwin and of evolution. We believe that evolution (the process of random mutation and natural selection) is the process by which humans eventually came into being. Where we might differ is that we believe humans, or possibly beings similar to humans, in that they have the capacity for self reflection, free will, and the development of divine attributes were destined to come about from the very beginning. Everything we see today was there potentially in the very first seeds of life and creation.
January 12, 2009 3:16 PM

Atheist said...
Hey Jason, It seems that you are not a bahai, because u dont know about this faith. Bahais dont believe in evolution and ESPECIALLY NATURAL SELECTION. Go to this website and judge:
http://www.bahai-library.org/articles/evolution.html
January 13, 2009 9:24 PM

Jason said...
Atheist,

Thank you for posting this link. You might find it interesting that this article appeared in a Baha'i journal. As Baha'is we are willing to calibrate our interpretation of spiritual teachings to new advancements in scientific discovery. I think the concept that Abdu'l Baha lays out, that we have always been potentially human, from the first single cell organism all the way up homosapien, does not contradict Darwin's notions of evolution. Instead I would argue it is a conceptual difference based upon the same reading of science.
January 13, 2009 9:57 PM

Atheist said...
How about this part that Abdulbaha says "it in the sense of progress or development within a single species, not in the meaning of the followers of Darwin, who believed that one species, by the force of natural selection alone,"
and how about this part:According to this view, the "modern" species is defined for an existing population of interbreeding organisms, by a common gene pool. For many modern biologists evolution is not the unfolding of a set of time invariant laws of nature or a God-given natural order, but evolution is believed to consist of new self-creations.(6) According to this view biological characteristics, which are not even potentially pre-existing, are assumed to be created de novo on the path of evolution. From the view point of an essentialist this position implies the evolution of species essences. Such concepts of self-creational evolution clearly contradict 'Abdu'l-Bahá's thesis that humanity mirrors the timeless names and attributes of God.


You know what you religious people are doing. you taking the scientific evidence and make them FIT with you religious ideas. In other word, you are rationalizing, you know you are wrong but dont want to admit it.
January 14, 2009 1:16 PM

Jason said...
I would agree with your statement that we are rationalizing, but I would add that we are doing it in both directions...also taking religious ideas and making them fit with scientific evidence. It is true that we attempt to harmonize science with a spiritual view of reality, a spiritual view that is based upon a faith in the existence of some kind of higher intelligence. Of course it is impossible to prove the existence of God, just like it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. To argue either side is an exercise in faith. Probably the most rational view to take given the information we have is to be agnostic.

Given that Baha'is do take a leap of faith that there is a higher intelligence which we cannot even begin to understand, we also view the universe in terms of spiritual purpose. The purpose for humans we believe is to grow spiritually and surrender ourselves to the suseptibilities of the higher intelligence. We also believe that we have developed (through physical evolution but spiritual determinism) intelligence for a reason, and to deny that faculty of reason is folly.

Baha'is believe that as humans evolve scientifically and philosophically, their conception of meaning must also adapt. For example, while Baha'is say they believe in the Bible (in addition to many other Holy books), we certainly wouldn't subscribe to the literal idea that the earth was created in seven days, or that Moses saw a literal burning bush, or that Christ physically resurrected. Christ said himself that he spoke to his followers using parables, and would speak much more plainly the next time around. This was the truth for them which gave them meaning in their lives, but a relative truth in a hierarchy of truth.

Continuing with this train of thought, Baha'is fully expect that our understanding of the universe will constantly change. Abdu'l Baha spoke as a spiritual philosopher working to understand the current scientific view of reality. We do not believe that Abdu'l Baha carried the creative word; he was not a manifestation of God (in the sense that we view the two prophet-founders of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah and the Ba'b to be). Instead we see him as a perfect example of human virtues at our stage of evolution. Somebody who interpreted the teachings of his father and gave guidlines regarding the protection, propagation, and organization of the Faith, but also somebody whose knowledge of scientific matters was limited to the evidence that everybody faced at that time.

Baha'is don't believe in the deriving of science from religion, but in the harmony. Humans are distinctly endowed with the faculties of reason which makes the scientific method the best means of advancing scientific understanding of reality. Science does a poor job however of advancing moral, ethical, and spiritual virtues. (the atom bomb is an obvious example, or the rampant materialism in our society today, the latter of which religion is often vulnerable to).


Now to the current discussion of evolution, I have to admit that much of it is over my head and I thank you for challenging me in this way, you have given me something to chew on. I would refer you to a review given of the book these two authors (whom you linked to) put out. What is interesting is that this review praises but also critizes parts of the book which present justification for Abdu'l Baha's explanations.

Here is the link:

http://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/abizadeh/Bahai-Evolution.pdf
January 14, 2009 9:54 PM

Atheist said...
The other problem of Abdulbaha is that he thought evolution is a progress (that each specie is superior that the previous specie), but this is wrong. As he said the spirituality of men has progressed. but evolution is not progressing.

everything is at the same level. Humans, worms, chimps, elephants, dolphins. we are not superior to worms and worms are not superior to humans, we can not live where worms live, and worms can not live where we live. so nobody is superior.

also, people think that we used to be apes, but no, we evolved from apes as apes did evolve. (we are called "late apes")

Abdulbaha was thinking of evolution as a hierarchy, but again he was wrong, nothing goes up the hierarchy, but they evolve in the same level.

Also, bahais tried to make science and religion go hand in hand, but couldn't. one example is the theory of evolution that we discussed and the other one is homosexuality. Shoghi efandi really did not do a good job discussing that point.
January 15, 2009 9:18 PM

Atheist said...
lets look at the original quote from Abdulbaha about evolution:

"[F]rom the beginning of man's existence he is a distinct species."
Ok, we have fossils that indicate that man has evolved from apes. so he is not a distinct specie.
Also he said FROM THE BEGINNING, what does that mean? the beginning of the universe? the beginning of life?

lets continue:

"In the same way, the embryo of man in the womb of the mother was at first in a strange form; then this body passes from shape to shape, from state to state, from form to form, until it appears in utmost beauty and perfection."

We know that we have not evolved to be beautiful and perfect, we evolved to survive, not for beauty.

"But even when in the womb of the mother and in this strange form, entirely different from his present form and figure, he is the embryo of the superior species, and not of the animal; his species and essence undergo no change."

As i said in my previous point we are not superior. secondly, he is comparing evolution to fetus in the womb. it is like comparing a bridge and the cement that the bridge is made of. the fetus in the womb is the result of the evolution (the bridge) but it is not the evolution (the cement)


"Now, admitting that the traces of organs which have disappeared actually exist, this is not a proof of the impermanence and the non-originality of the species. At the most it proves that the form, and fashion, and the organs of man have progressed."

Again, he is making the mistake that evolution is a hierarchy and we progress to get to the top. no, not at all, evolution does not have a plan for future, it is not goal directed and it is not a progress. (this is one of the misconceptions that Darwin was concerned about, Darwin knew people would think that way)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2

"Man was always a distinct species, a man, not an animal."

Yes, we are an animal and we should be proud of that. we are Late-apes. we evolved from animals, like other animals, so we are an animal.

"So, if the embryo of man in the womb of the mother passes from one form to another, so that the second form in no way resembles the first, is this a proof that the species has changed? that it was at first an animal, and that its organs progressed and developed until it became a man? No indeed! How puerile and unfounded is this idea and this thought! For the proof of the originality of the human species, and of the permanency of the nature of man, is clear and evident.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 300)"


this sentence makes me laugh:"How PUERILE and unfounded is this idea and this thought!"
2 reasons:
1. he is making fun of Darwin
2. he said this Idea and Thought, not a theory, so he was not recognizing that in future Darwin's theory will be the best proven theories. (im wondering why God didn't tell him or help him?!)
January 15, 2009 9:39 PM

Jason said...

On your last point...As I said before, Baha'is respect the scientific process as an independent branch of human development. Abdu'l Baha was using the science available at the time to make some comments about the spiritual nature of humans. His intention was not to give us a science lesson, or to establish scientific truths...that wouldn't be his funtion, his funtion was the ethical, moral, social, and spiritual guidance of the Baha'i community at that time. I think we can both obtain from Abdu'l Baha's writings that he believed in the physical process of evolution. I grant that the idea of man always as a distinct species would not make sense if said in its current context. It would imply that there isn't common ancestory...science tells us that there is so I agree with it. I am not quite sure what Abdu'l Baha meant by that, it is possible that by 'species', he meant something spiritual or allegorical, not scientific...Nevertheless, even given the current theory of evolution, I would disagree that it invalidates the possible existence of God. Of course evolution was not deterministic, humans were not destined to have the exact physical features that they do today. Instead I would argue that it was stochastic, meaning it could have gone in many different ways with a very high probability that some species would develop that had the same spiritual capacities of humans.

This leads me to your other point about the heirarchy of kingdoms. Of course in one sense we are all on the same level, we all branched out and and we have all carved out a particular niche. On the other hand, what other species has the capacity for self reflection, for the capacity of objectivity, for unimaginable horror and unimaginable beauty? Humans have the capacity to express almost any attribute. Can you say that of any other species? Every species has certain spiritual capacities, but do they have them all?

This capacity is the reason Baha'is believe that true human purpose is to grow spiritually and thereby reflect the incredible majesty of the universe. We are uniquely capable of doing this (at least on this planet, you should peruse what Baha'u'llah says about potential life on other planets).

Science can explain human evolution but it cannot explain why. If humans feel lack of purpose in their lives, they become depressed and even suicidal. What makes you think that a universe this expansive and majestic could operate without a higher purpose? What makes you an athiest as opposed to an agnostic? I understand why you are frustrated with religion. We believe not only that there is a God, but that it has made itself known unto humans. That's a big claim. It is equally as big of a claim to say that there is no God at all.

We are both taking leaps of faith in our discussion, so lets keep it going.

Da Bank said...
Alláh'u'Abhá, Atheist, I thought I'd add to the discussion here. I certainly applaud your knowledge and your desire to promote understanding of the wonderful discoveries science has made possible, especially in relation to the distortions that past religious hierarchies have tried to perpetuate (for example the persecution of scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo by the Christian clergy 400 years ago).Regarding your criticisms of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's discussion of evolution, I think it would be helpful for you to read his writings, on many topics, more extensively, so you can be more familiar with the style and vocabulary he uses. Many of the objections you've raised seem to me to be a result of differences between what 'Abdu'l'Bahá meant by a word, writing 100 years ago, and the meaning we give to that word today. For example, you rightly point out that, from a material or scientific viewpoint, organisms (including humans) are not inherently superior or inferior to each other - a worm and a human being are equal in that they are both biological organisms, each having evolved to best adapt to the conditions of the environment in which it lives, as are all organisms. Biologically, worms and humans are both classified as 'animals', where the modern meaning of this term is an organism that is multicellular, and whose cells have mitochondria and lack cell walls. This applies equally to worms and humans. However, at the time 'Abdu'l-Bahá was writing, the term 'animal' was part of an older view of classification, where animals are those organisms that are capable of movement, but do not possess self-awareness or intelligence - they were part of a more limited division of the natural world into mineral (the inorganic), vegetable (organisms not capable of movement), animal (capable of movement), and man (possessing self-awareness and intelligence). In this classification, each division is part of a hierarchy from 'most inferior' (mineral) to 'most superior' (man). This is the meaning of the term 'animal' as used by 'Abdu'l-Bahá when speaking to his audiences 100 years ago, while now, of course, we have a different understanding of the natural world, and a different definition of the term 'animal'. So, to sum up, it would help your argument to reflect upon how those terms and assertions which 'Abdu'l-Bahá makes that you object to were intended for audiences of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and how we understand those terms and assertions today. I look forward to more discussion with you.
January 18, 2009 9:32 AM

rsiegel said...
I appreciate the following thoughtfully-written essay on this topic: http://www.onecountry.org/e193/e19302as_Perspective_Evolution.html
6:15 PM