Question about Evil and Good from Mihandoost

[LDPC]

In the thread about presidential race you mentioned:

It was troubling that in their interview with Rick Warren, both agreed with the existence of "evil" in the world and offered slightly different ways of opposing it. This viewpoint is dangerous and divisive, whereas we should know by now that "evil" as it were, is simply the absence of good, as darkness is the absence of light, cold the absence of warmth, etc. In their eagerness to appease to the Evangelical community, I hope they do not sacrifice inclusivity and subscribe to the outdated notion of "us against them".

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1833118,00.html?cnn=yes

Why is this view dangerous and divisive can you elaborate more? Do you mean if one believes in existance of evil as a separate entity with its own charachteristics not a dependant one he will fall in more destruction of what he thinks evil instead of building what he thinks good. Something that classifies people into two limited classes without understanding more about them. I believe the Bahai faith believes in existance of good and Heaven only and that people separate or distance themselves from ultimate goodness and become less good and less heavenly. I can personally accept this but wish to know why do you think its dangerous to believe in Heaven and Hell and Good and evil? Can you elaborate more on this.

Also how come the Arahamic religions all believe in Hevean and Hell and suddenly in Bahai faith this fundamental issue was revised. Even in Quran it mentions Satan as a separate entity. How do Bahai's explain this difference in Bahai faith and the previous religions. I would be grateful if you would explain it.

By the way:
It reminds me of soft values versus hard values in information theory. The more bits you use to define something the higher possible information you may have. Evil and good are 2 bit quantizations while a continous good could have a granulity as much as we can handle at the time. Its more suitable for modern men where everything is less black and white and more fuzzy.

 

[Meehandoost]

Dear LDPC;

Thanks for your question and sharing your views. As you say this outdated belief in the existence of evil although perceived to be Christian or Arahamic, is actually an archaic "perception" shared by many cultures which clearly is divisive since it puts people into "good" and "evil" categories. It is also dangerous because it puts one's enemies into the category of "evil" (sharr) and naturally oneself in the category of "good" (kheir) which not only focuses one's energy, time and resources into fighting that "evil", but also relieves one of any accountability, since one perceives "good" to be "right".

Islamic republic of Iran too perceives itself to be the benefactor of the occulted Imam and the source of "good", and everyone else "evil" and "infidels" and not only fights them but awaits the coming of an Imam who will destroy whatever they consider "evil". This self bestowed and perceived status relieves the mullahs and their henchmen of any accountability and reason which has proved devastating for the land and nation, let alone others who disagree. This is why religious zealotry, any perceived religion, has no place in governing a country rather states should be secular and all-inclusive.

You are also correct that the Baha'i Faith teaches that "evil" by itself does not exist rather it is the absence of what is "good" and "godly", just as darkness is the absence of light, death the absence of life, Satan the absence of godliness, sickness the absence of health, cold the absence of warmth, etc. This seemingly subtle different outlook creates a fundamentally different approach towards conflict resolution and problem solving. For this new doctrine fights darkness with light, evil with good and cold with warmth, not with sword, bombs, bullets and force. This is one example of the "new world order" which makes the old outdated order and way of thinking stand on its head. The old outdated "perception" would fight darkness and "evil" by holy wars, crusades, bombs and bullets, the new order fights them by shedding light and spreading good in the world. Where there is light there is no darkness, where there is good there is no evil, where there is health there is no sickness, where there is warmth there is no cold.

As for the notions of "heaven & hell", they too have been elucidated to be "state of being" as opposed to actual places and streams of honey and milk, fair-maidens and the likes. Heaven can be said to be two-fold, one in this world whenever we live in the good pleasure of God, and second the state of our souls in the next worldS (plural meaning many more), and our closeness to God. Hell on the other hand is living outside the good pleasure of God in this world and the state of drifting away from Him and not drawing close to Him and even worse yet, not being aware of it.

 

[LDPC]

Thanks Meehandoost jan for the detailed answer.
Something is still unclear for me. If I am correct it said "the new world order" new rules are given like the rule that no animal is dirty ("Najes"), rule about wars, etc ... I can accept new rules due to human progress in the past 1000 years but I haven't been able to see any script that describes the major difference between the philosophy of the Arahamic and the Bahai faith.
Let me explain what I mean with my lame English:
In the book of "The thief in the Night" by William sears he explains that the christians miss interpreted the meanings of Bible and explains the true meaning of it. Also Ighan describes the differences as well. As far as I have read I haven't seen any book that describes this fundamental philosphical difference between the Abrahamic believs and Bahai faith. On the other hand Bahai faith insists that the Baha'i faith is the continuity of the Abrahamic faiths and from the same tree. In my opinion the belief in Evil is a fundamental philosophical issue and many punishments in Quran is based on this belief. Some say the core is the same and the functionalities have changed. How does Bahai faith explain this major difference and still considers that the core is the same. Am I correct to say this belief is a core difference between the religions of Bahai faith and other religions.

It would be nice if you could tell me some books to read on this issue. Thanks a lot for your time.

 

[Meehandoost]

Dear LDPC;

Thank you for your interest and your question. The truth can clearly be one,the difference however is in our perception of it which evolves and deepens with time. Therefore, the perception which you call "Abrahamic" is better understood if associated with time as opposed to any religion. You may be familiar with the principle of "progressive revelation" in the Baha'i Faith which explains how God's will and one and only religion is revealed to humanity progressively through ages in accordance with our comprehension and needs and challenges of time. That God's essence is the only absolute in the universe and all other things including His revelations and religious truths are relative and in the state of flux and evolution. Therefore, the Baha'i Faith does recognize the fundamental truth of all previous revelations, but at the same time does expand on them, deepens our understanding of our purpose and spiritual journey and elucidates any wrong perceptions of the past which may have been formed over the years due to literal interpretations of allegories and parables. Clearly, evolution, progress and renewal come by new divine guidance and teachings which are a new impetus breathed into the world of humanity.

For instance, in grade school we learn that one plus one equals two, but later expand on this fundamental learning that depending on the construct that we are using one plus one may not equal two at times. This does not contradict the primary learning, rather it was necessary to develop our brains to the extent that it would be capable of deciphering more and more complex problems with time. The same is true of the world of humanity and its progress through ages in general.

The fact that some Christian or Islamic clergy believe in the existence of "evil" or "Satan" in the world does not necessarily make those beliefs Abrahamic or true. Baha'is believe this is why Baha'u'llah has come to correct the misconceptions and align our will again with the Will of God. In fact if one reads the beautiful poetry of Molavi and ponders and reflects on their meaning, one becomes certain that His Islam was fundamentally different and at odds with that of the current mullahs. Molavi, and many other great Persian poets and philosophers have been quoted in the Baha'i writings, and for instance Baha'u'llah has elucidated in His "Four Valleys" and "Seven Valleys" Molavi's story of the four "evil" birds which, when put to death, changed into four birds of goodness and that the allegory refers to subduing "evil" qualities and replacing them with "good". (pages 50-52)

Of course you have a keen observation to recognize this shift in thinking in the Baha'i Faith as a fundamental change. If one believes in the existence of "evil", one naturally wants to fight and subdue it by force, guns and bullets, whereas if one believes "evil" to be the absence of "good", one fights it by spreading goodness, that which is absent, darkness by shedding light upon it, that which is absent, coldness by radiating heat and warmth, that which is absent, and hatred and animosity by showing love and friendship, which are absent. This approach is precisely what has enabled the wronged Baha'i community of Iran to endure the long persecution and discrimination. Instead of calling their enemies "evil" and fighting them in holy wars, they forgive them and shed light in a dark land which has become bereft of compassion and love. This approach is much more constructive, conducive to peace and what the world needs right now, not more confrontation and wars!

I am not aware of any one book on the topic to which I can refer you, however I am happy to share this quote from Some Answered Questions of Abdul-Baha, pages 263/4: The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.

Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man’s characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.

Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.

In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence—that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.

Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements—that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.

The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life.

When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.

Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent.

Source: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-75.html

 

[LDPC]

That was very interesting.Thank you for your time. The beautiful way you described the subject stimulated me to go and read the four valleys, seven valleys and the Some Answered Questions of Abdul-Baha and also listen to the radio programs from Dr. Nader Saeedi. I remember at the time (2 years ago) I enjoyed it very much in Bahairadio.org.

I have plenty of time these days to read the scripts again. I remember there was an Ocean software which was a nice search tool inside religion scripts. I just installed that as well. Its a wonedrful tool if anyone wants to search inside the scriptures ( Baha'i, Islam, Budhist, Christian, Hindu, Judahism, Tao, sikh and Zorestinian) for particular topic. I just searched Evil and it brought up all the existances of Evil word in Islam and Bahai faith. Its amazing.
If anyone is interested its in: http://www.bahai-education.org/ocean/

Thanks again Meehandoost jan. As usual you put the answer so beautifuly that it inspired me to read the texts again. God bless you.

 

[Meehandoost]

You're quite welcome. I also meant to mention Ocean as a great reference for researching any topic in any religion, but I forgot. As well you may research it online at www.reference.bahai.org in the language of your choice. I don’t know in which language you prefer to read these texts, but it is good to also use the English translation as a reference since the writings are so potent and concise. Of course in order to research you have to know what you want to research and it takes a keen mind to pose these deep and penetrating questions.

In the end, these "apparent" fundamental differences in various revelations (religions) have to do with time and it would eliminate much fervor in religious discussions if they were viewed as such, as opposed to differences among religions which are often associated with people. Meaning God had always willed for equality of sexes, abolishment of slavery, or unification of humankind, but the time and means to establish them were not in place. How could it have been possible to unite mankind when most were not even aware of other parts of the worlds? Today, not only is it possible, but it is inevitable and our growing interdependence and rising global issues are a testament to that.