The Baha'i Faith has been a significant part of my journey. I say part of the journey and not destination primarily because the journey never ends and there is no destination. Belief is the exclusive product of individual experience and while it may prove different from reality from time to time, it can never be false unless it is dissimulated because belief is an extrapolation based on experience and is not an expression of known fact.
Ideally...
The most attractive aspect of the Baha'i Faith for me has been their ideals. I am repulsed by religious groups who neglect the good of the people for the good of the Unprovable. Baha'i ideals include the following:
- The purpose of religion is love and unity
- Independent investigation of truth is an ongoing endeavour
- The source of all true religion is the same God
- Unity in diversity
- The necessary harmony of science and religion
- The equal rights of men and women
- The abolition of al forms of prejudice
- Universal peace
- Universal education
- A spiritual solution to economic problems
- The need for a universal auxiliary language
- The need for a global parliament and judiciary system
A book called, "New Keys to the Book of Revelation." by Ruth Moffett made an impressive interpretation of the Bible's scroll of Revelation. It made up in virtuosity what it lacked in background research. Of particular interest to a geologist such as myself was the interpretation of meaning for the stones of the twelve foundations of "New Jerusalem". Although geologically inaccurate, Moffett attributes this interpretation to `Abdu'l-Baha. However, in a letter to an individual believer (that would be yours truly) dated ISO: 1999-Dec-26, the Universal House of Justice stated that no tablet fitting the description given by Moffett could be found. Further digging yielded no mention of 12 principles by `Abdu'l-Baha (9 principles, 11 principles, and 13 principles but not 12 principles). In fact the only contemporary delivering an idea of twelve principles was Mason Remey before he was ex-communicated; when he was still a highly respected member of the Baha'i Community (`Abdu'l-Baha is reported by Star of the West as praising Mason Remey for his presentation on twelve principles - I don't recall the issue and if anyone does, I'd appreciate the extra detail). Perhaps this explains why some of the mineralogy is so slack.
In any case, the saga of the twelve principles embodying ideals that I hold dear couched in mineralogical symbolism, has always fascinated me. I've considered re-interpreting Moffett's rendition of the matter with more accurate mineralogy and perhaps I'll get around to the task and liven up the introductory page to the twelve firesides...
Food for Thought...
Odd Topics
Of course, there are some topics both of geological and not-so-geological relevance to the Baha'i Faith that have proven interesting to me. Baha'u'llah's copper into gold statement (Iqan) flies in the face of billion year old copper deposits if taken literally, whereas some of `Abdu'l-Baha's statements about evolution appear to neglect Baha'u'llah's endorsement of Hermes' being "informed the mysteries of creation" in light of what Hermes evidently had to say on the matter. However, given that this is a scientific rather than religious question, `Abdu'l-Baha has no authority here because by his own admission, infallibility is only of two types and not being a manifestation of God, `Abdu'l-Baha was never possessed of "essential infallibility". If Hermes is indeed the "Father of Philosophy" as suggested by Baha'u'llah, that makes him a likely suspect for first Adamic Manifestation of God. Hermes is a fascinating character known by many names to many different people. He is Mercury to the Romans, Enoch to the Jews (formerly of Assyrian not Egyptian origins), Idris to the Arabs, or Tat or Thothe depending on which Egyptian Kingdom names him. The signature of Hermes is the bringing of "three magics" or three bodies of knowledge. Bright (from which the name Brigit derives) is credited by the Celts (namely the Irish) for the bringing of three bodies of knowledge not dissimilar to those brought by Hermes Mercurius Trismegistas.
Interestingly, although Bright was a woman instead of a man, the former femininity of God was erased by the rise of a male God throughout the regions visited by Hermes (eg. the Myceanisation), Enoch (Archaeological evidence shows the indigenous people of Jerusalem worshipped a female deity before being replaced by the Israelites), & Mercury (Archaeological evidence throughout Italy points to the worship of a female deity in former times). I think that it would not be unreasonable to postulate that when God was given a sex change, so too were the Messengers of God.
In any case, my search for the origins of monotheism soon went in search of polytheism as every religion classified as "polytheistic" turned out to be no more polytheistic than Judaism (See 82nd Psalm & Christ's explanation as reported by John 10:34-36 for clarification). What my search uncovered was that polytheism is a purely fictional idea built out of the linguistic dissembly of other people's beliefs and probably invented for the sake of slandering competing religious interests. Even the famous Roman, Greek, and original Sumerian pantheons, like those of Hindu and Buddhist veneration, are subject to a "King of gods" (eg. Indra who even makes an appearance in literature of the purportedly "Atheist" Theravada Canon of Buddhism), which theme re-emerges in Christianity, Islam, and Babi/Baha'i Faiths with the symbolism attached to the idea of a spiritual "King of kings".
I would suggest in light of linguistic evolution and what Christ had to say about it, that where there is a "King", "Queen", or otherwise "Chief" among gods you can't honestly apply the term, "polytheism". In any case, the most obvious event that emerges from the religious archaeology is God's gender switch. No other shift in popular belief has been so violent which raises the potentially unanswerable question of why we so desperately need to make a man of God (when by definition, only a female can create life!)...? Is it the insecurity and perhaps envy of those incapable of giving birth to life or is it perhaps the social need to impose a submission ritual whereby proof of submission is offered through the profession of a belief in something so nonsensical that such a profession cannot possibly be conscientious?
