Quite the contrary, Eddie,
. That which we put our trust in is that which we have. A cow does not graze on tomorrow’s grass. That you are eating from a field which has long since dried up should in fact cause your hunger to be so strong that you should find yourself running through fences to get to the fresh new grass which God has bountifully provided.
. I grew up on a farm, my friend. Those old haystacks filled with dried, brown bales do not fatten cattle. They are kept only in reserve for the worst of droughts. What you want is fresh alfalfa, but in due proportion.
. One time a herd of cattle unaccustomed to an abundance of fresh alfalfa broke through the fence, fattened themselves on more than they could digest, became so bloated that their very death was possible from the experience of so much nutrition.
. My old man, born on the prairie homestead in 1905 knew well what could happen, watched over them carefully, ready at one point to plunge a knife into the bloated belly of a calf to release the gas. We watched. We waited. The calves survived, and the knife was not used.
. Bloated egos are sometimes the effect of spiritual adolescence when feeding upon the fields of one’s own vain imaginings. Mistaking pride for knowledge, taking Lucifer for his lord, and suffering the consequences of disobedience is an ancient tale, full of wisdom to the wise and a warning to others.
. Fresh fields of alfalfa have a certain tempting smell, almost intoxicating when a field is fresh cut. Cattle are drawn to it as moths to a lamp. How many wings are burnt in the fire of heedlessness. The Cherubim protects the inner sanctuary, my friend.
I am going to attempt a targeted, nnarrowly caused thread, rather than a wildly meandering thread, on topics Baha’i.
First, I wish to point out that the above post was a response to someone who asked a question about non-published Baha’i writings. I do NOT BELIEVE the point of the OP above was to demean Christianity. The purpose seems to me to be that the Baha’i Writings are so spiritually-dense that an overload of them would have a deleterious effect.
Which seems to me to be overstretching an analogy. Reading material, particularly material received as ‘Scripture’ does indeed get compared by analogy to spiritual ‘nourishment’.
And one can get “too much” of this sort of spiritual fare, in the sense of being a bit intellectually overloaded or confused.
But–the world has had well on a century to process these writings and numerous other professed ‘prophets’ have come-and-gone, presenting the world with other ‘revelations’’, good or ill. Moreover, many Scriptures of previous spiritual traditions have now been translated, as with the Buddhist sutras, Hindu Vedas, etcetera.
I think there is little risk of humanity becoming ‘bloated’ on Baha’i revelations.
There is, however, a good likelihood that fuller access to the writings and musings of Baha’U’llah might reveal much more of his human, uninspired side.
Might reveal contradictions and errors which would diminish his stature and bring into question his profession to be an oracle of God.
Indeed–access to originals of even his extant writings might be jarring in terms of what they reveal, the seams and cracks and interstices in the thinking of Baha’U’llah ere an editor smoothed these over. We have cause to believe, based upon experience with other new religious movements, that access to such materials can be damaging to claimants of special revelation.
Should it not trouble outsiders, does it not trouble Baha’i believers that these are not readily available?
Thanks for responding.